The complaint accuses Allergan's benefits plan committee and thecompany's chief financial officer, Maria Teresa Hilado, of failingto protect workers from a 23 percent drop in Allergan's stockprice in connection with an ongoing Department of Justiceinvestigation into price collusion among major pharmaceuticalcompanies. Ms. Hilado and the committee breached their dutiesunder federal benefits law by continuing to let workers investretirement savings in Allergan stock, which carried anartificially inflated price tag before news of the investigationbroke, the complaint alleges.

Allergan -- which was subpoenaed in connection with the DOJinvestigation in 2015 00 is the first drug company to be sued overrelated retirement plan losses. In December 2016, 20 stateattorneys' general filed antitrust charges against six drugcompanies, including Aurobindo, Heritage, Mylan and Teva, withoutnaming Allergan. The DOJ filed its first criminal charges thatsame month, targeting two former Heritage executives.

Litigation over alleged drug price fixing continues to swirl, withtwo new lawsuits targeting Allergan in the past month. The suits,filed by California's attorney general and the Federal TradeCommission, challenge the pricing of lidocaine patches intended totreat shingles. Allergan has challenged the FTC lawsuit, whichwas filed Jan. 23 in a California federal court, as "flagrantforum shopping" and an attempt to circumvent a settlement enteredin a Pennsylvania-based federal court.

Allergan also faces multiple securities lawsuits over stock lossesconnected to the DOJ investigation. Those lawsuits claim thathundreds of thousands of Allergan shareholders were harmed by thealleged fraud. By contrast, the most recent lawsuit allegesviolations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act andseeks relief on behalf of "at least 19,000" individuals who heldAllergan stock in the company's retirement plan. It's the firsttime Allergan has been sued under ERISA in at least five years,according to Bloomberg Law Litigation Analytics.

The ERISA lawsuit will likely face obstacles in the federalcourts, which have been increasingly likely to dismiss ERISAclaims involving employer stock losses since a seminal U.S.Supreme Court decision in 2014.

Since that decision, a number of companies have beaten these"stock-drop" lawsuits, with courts rejecting claims involving thecompany stock plans of Lehman Brothers, General Motors, RadioShackCorp., J.C. Penney, Whole Foods Corp., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S.LLC.

The ERISA lawsuit against Allergan was filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Central District of California by Zamansky LLC.

* first claim in the First Amended Complaint for failure to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code;

* third claim in the First Amended Complaint for waiting time penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code;

* fourth claim in the First Amended Complaint for Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business Code, for this proposed class:

All current and former hourly paid personal bankers who, at any time within four years preceding the filing of this case to the present, worked in the State of California and were not paid one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for shifts where timekeeping and payroll records show timely meal periods of at least 30 minutes were not provided pursuant to the requirements of Labor Code 226.7.

Mr. Belevich also asks the Court to appoint him as classrepresentative and to appoint Matthew Righetti, Esq., and MichaelRighetti, Esq., as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 3, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.,to consider the Motion.

BLACKBERRY LTD: Employees File Suit Over Ford Partnership---------------------------------------------------------Shane Dingman at The Globe and Mail reports an Ottawa law firm ispreparing to file a class-action lawsuit seeking more than $20-million in damages against BlackBerry Ltd., alleging the companymisled employees who accepted a transfer to Ford Motor Co. ofCanada Ltd. as part of a strategic partnership.

Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP filed a notice of action in OntarioSuperior Court on behalf of David Parker, a 14-year employee ofBlackBerry who claims he accepted a transfer to Ford before beingtold that he would not receive any termination benefits fromBlackBerry or retain his years of service. The firm claims morethan 100 workers in the Ottawa area were affected by thetransfers, with as many as 200 more employees affected elsewherein Canada.

The filing claims this amounts to a breach of good faith, and thatit misled the workers with a transaction that circumventsstatutory entitlements. In addition to punitive damages, the suitwill seek any severance benefits to which terminated employeeswould be entitled.

Sarah McKinney, director of corporate communications forBlackBerry, offered the following statement: "We have reviewed theallegations in the lawsuit, and are confident we complied with allour obligations to our employees. Therefore, we believe the caselacks merit and we will defend against it vigorously."

The class-action lawsuit has not yet been filed or certified. Noneof the allegations have been proven in court.

The employee moves were part of a deal the smartphone pioneer madewith the auto maker in October, 2016, to improve Ford's in-carinfotainment and assisted-driving systems. BlackBerry said at thetime a team of QNX engineers would help integrate such products asthe QNX Neutrino operating system, Certicom encryption technology,QNX Hypervisor (a heads-up display system for windshields) and QNXaudio-processing software.

"As we announced in October, we are working with Blackberry toexpand the use of Blackberry's QNX and security software to helpensure we deliver a high-quality and highly-secure experience forour customers," said Michelle Lee-Gracey, Communications Managerfor Ford of Canada. "We are not going to comment beyond what weannounced."

Stephen Penrose, James Thomas, Joseph Guardino and Daniel Popefiled a complaint, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, Jan. 27 in U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Missouri against Buffalo Trace Distillery Inc., OldCharter Distillery Co., and Sazerac Company, Inc., alleging theyfalsely advertise the age of their bourbon products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered monetarydamages from purchasing a bourbon product that was wronglylabeled. The plaintiffs allege the defendants falsely label theirbourbon to have been aged for eight years in order to deceiveconsumers into purchasing a lesser-quality product that issignificantly less than eight years old.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, compensatory and punitivedamages, interest, restitution, enjoin the defendants and orderthem to engage in corrective advertising, all legal fees and allother relief the court deems just. They are represented byattorney Yitzchak Kopel of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Casenumber 4:17-cv-00294-PLC

CANADA: Advance Costs Awarded in Child Welfare Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Mallory Hendry, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that in arare move, advance costs have been awarded in a class actionagainst the Government of Alberta and Metis Settlements Child andFamily Services.

"On the merits, I thought this was one of the strongest cases thatcould be put forward for advance costs," says Robert Lee, avictims' rights lawyer at Robert P. Lee PC in Edmonton and counselfor the plaintiffs in the class action. "I anticipated we wouldwin, but you never know. It was pretty stressful when I receivedthe decision because the stakes were so tremendously high."

On Feb. 10, the decision in LC v. Alberta was released, the latestin a string of cases dealing with claims that the government inthat province -- in particular, its child services branch --failed to file care plans in a timely way or, in some cases, atall for children in government care under temporary guardianshiporders.

Mr. Lee says his reaction to the decision is mixed.

"On the one hand, I'm happy, but on the other hand, this has goneon already so long that it's so tiring. It's not finished. Iexpect that there will be an appeal and that's the whole problemwith this case -- the huge disadvantage that the plaintiffs faceagainst a government."

Justice Robert Graesser wrote in the decision that he had"provisionally certified this as a class action proceeding" andthat the class action was split into classes -- the child classand the parent/guardian class. Advance costs were awarded in thisdecision to the child class.

Mr. Lee is already facing an appeal by the government on the classaction certification, calling the string of cases an ongoing war.

"I started suing child welfare in 1998," he says, noting that he'snot even a class action lawyer -- he's a sole practitioner whotook on a few cases that ended up turning into class actions. "Imight retire before this case is finished. That's the reality.And that's why advance costs are so important -- the governmentscan drag these things out forever and ever and ever. The lawyersneed to be able to fund themselves while the case goes on."

Mr. Lee adds that if the government is essentially paying for thecase once an advance costs order is made, it "totally changes thedynamics of the lawsuit."

"Now they don't have the financial advantage anymore," he says."They can't grind the plaintiff into the ground."

Mr. Lee says this is one of the first times advance costs havebeen awarded in a class action setting, and it's an importantdecision because he sees a rise in class action lawyers turning tolitigation funding companies and, "frankly, from my perspective, Idon't think that's a healthy alternative for our legal system andfor plaintiffs." He argues that advance costs mean the well-funded defendant loses the economic advantage that causes aprocedural advantage.

"Advance costs is a proper remedy where a litigant can't get alawyer to do the case, because these defendants go into thisscorched-earth approach where they throw all their resources intotrying to stop the case from proceeding," Mr. Lee says.

Advance costs is a remedy that exists in our legal system, hesays, and the application has to meet three tests as laid out bythe Supreme Court of Canada. In British Columbia (Ministry ofForests) v. Okanagan Indian Band the court held that "the power toorder interim costs is inherent in the nature of the equitablejurisdiction as to costs, in the exercise of which the court maydetermine at its discretion when and by whom costs are to bepaid."

Later, in Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v. Canada(Commissioner of Customs & Revenue Agency) and in R. v. Caron, theSCC spelled out the three requirements needed for advance costs tobe ordered. In this case, Justice Graesser wrote out the three-prong test:

The party seeking interim costs genuinely cannot afford to pay forthe litigation, and no other realistic option exists for bringingthe issues to trial -- in short, the litigation would be unable toproceed if the order were not made.

The claim to be adjudicated is prima facie meritorious; that is,the claim is at least of sufficient merit that it is contrary tothe interests of justice for the opportunity to pursue the case tobe fortified just because the litigant lacks financial means.The issues raised transcend the individual interests of theparticular litigant, are of public importance and have not beenresolved in previous cases: Okanagan at para. 40.

Though the case law calls advance costs "an extraordinary remedy"and necessitates "sufficiently special" cases in order to apply,Mr. Lee says the courts generally use it in trust cases or inmatrimonial cases where there's kind of a spousal fiduciary duty,and he argues that child welfare should be viewed similarly as aspecial category since the government owes the children afiduciary duty.

"Advance costs are appropriate in almost every child welfare caseand I'm confident in almost any case you will find the criteriaset by the SCC in Okanagan and Little Sisters -- it's met."

While Justice Graesser approved the advance costs, he did not setan amount. "The amount . . . will be determined upon receivingadditional submissions," he wrote in the decision. Mr. Lee hadsought coverage for his budget of $1,774,537.50, but he says thejudge said he was "not prepared to approve a budget in thatmagnitude."

Mr. Lee says that even though he has the costs order, and "as alawyer, academically, professionally, I'm so proud of thisdecision," which he calls precedent-setting, he's been fightingthis battle for so many years and the piece of paper doesn't helphim pay his staff or his rent.

"In the decision, the judge says maybe we might have to wait forcertification appeal," he says, noting they just filed theirfactum on that appeal and he's currently working on his responseto that. "Until I see something from it, it's just kind of moreof the same -- a lot of fighting against the government where theycan just fight and fight."

CARL KARCHER: Wage Suit at Issue at Puzder Confirmation Hearing---------------------------------------------------------------David Dayen, writing for The Intercept, reports that the companyrun by Andy Puzder, who President Trump has nominated forsecretary of labor, ran an illegal wage-fixing scheme for managersat his company's restaurants, according to a class-action lawsuitfiled in California superior court.

Puzder is the CEO of the vast Carl Karcher Enterprises (CKE) fast-food chain. One former and one current Carl's Jr. shift leaderallege that franchisees -- which Puzder has repeatedly describedas independent businesses -- colluded with one another to preventmanagers from moving between restaurants.

As alleged, the scheme also appears to violate federal law underthe Sherman Antitrust Act, as an illegal restraint of trade. Thatwould be a felony punishable by a $1 million fine and up to 10years in prison for individuals charged.

For Mr. Puzder, the lawsuit adds to a growing list of concernsheading into his Feb. 16 confirmation hearing. Mr. Puzder, whohas not secured the support of enough Republicans to guarantee hisconfirmation, delayed his hearing four times to get his financialdisclosures in order; admitted to employing an undocumentedhousekeeper; and worked under the tutelage of a notorious moblawyer. His ex-wife appeared on Oprah in disguise in the 1990s todiscuss domestic violence incidents in their marriage; senators inboth parties have viewed the footage, and divorce records, whichinclude additional allegations of assault, were unsealed on Feb.14.

But the class-action suit filed February 8 in Los Angeles, part ofa pattern of alleged labor violations at Carl Karcher Enterprises(CKE) restaurant chains, speaks to the very issues that Puzderwould oversee at the Labor Department. Mr. Puzder has alreadyproven himself an outspoken critic of the minimum wage, expandedovertime laws and workplace safety rules, and the case chargesthat under Puzder's leadership, CKE again violated worker rights.

The lawsuit attempts to show that CKE, which owns the Carl's Jr.,Hardee's, Green Burrito, and Red Burrito brands, underminedworkers' ability to thrive in the free market that Mr. Puzdercherishes so much in public.

"There's one system in the history of the world that producesenough economic growth to meaningfully reduce poverty andmeaningfully increase opportunity, and that's free marketcapitalism," the lawsuit quotes Mr. Puzder as saying in atelevision appearance.

But franchisees of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's deliberately restrictthe free market for workers through "no-hire" agreements. CKEfranchisees "will not knowingly employ or seek to employ anyperson then employed by [Carl's Jr.] or any franchisee of [Carl'sJr.] as a shift leader or higher, or otherwise directly orindirectly induce such person to leave his or her employmentwithout prior written consent," according to a preliminaryfranchising agreement quoted in the lawsuit.

This makes workers unable to threaten to leave for another CKEoutlet at a higher wage. Because the CKE system is specialized,and franchisees are encouraged to promote from within, thishampers restaurant managers' bargaining power. "The market forCKE employees is not free," the lawsuit states.

Several Silicon Valley firms settled a class-action lawsuit oversimilar anti-poaching allegations for $415 million in 2015.

The lawsuit cleverly plays on CKE's insistence that individualfranchisees are their own separate entities, in direct competitionwith one another.

In testimony before Congress, Mr. Puzder has said that all CKEfranchisees make independent employment and operational decisions."Our franchisees are not a division, subsidiary, or alter ego ofCKE, but are truly independent small businessmen and businesswomenwho know how to drive their own business,"Mr. Puzder told the House Education and the Workforce Committee in2014.

CKE's franchise disclosure agreement states that franchisees donot get an exclusive territory, and "may face competition fromother franchisees" or "outlets that we own and/or operate."

The parent company does this to avoid what is known as jointemployer liability, so employees cannot hold them accountable forwage theft or hazardous working conditions. In other words: toavoid responsibility, CKE argues that the franchisees make theirown decisions.

But competing CKE franchises cannot restrict employees fromswitching job locations to hold down wages. Shift leaders at CKErestaurants, the lowest level of manager, make just $10 an hour onaverage, according to the lawsuit. Plaintiffs argue that the no-hire agreement suppresses wages and worsens working conditions bydrying up the market for CKE restaurant-level managers. "CKE andPuzder cannot have it both ways," the lawsuit states. "Theycannot eschew responsibilities under labor and employment laws byembracing a 'free market' model of independent franchisees, whilerestraining free competition to the detriment of thousands ofworkers."

A similar lawsuit was filed against Uber last year, alleging pricefixing between its nominally "independent" drivers, which Uberdoes not classify as employees.

Though filed in state court, the CKE case would apply to federalstatutes as well. Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Actexplicitly prohibits "horizontal" integration, where rivalcompanies within the same sector collude to fix prices or wages.These practices are punished as felonies under federal law.Because CKE, Puzder's company, is not only a franchisor but aparticipant in the market -- directly owning 30 percent of themore than 3,400 CKE franchises as of 2012 -- they would be liablealong with the franchisees for wage-fixing.

The Justice Department just issued guidance last October warningof criminal penalties for anti-poaching violations. The state ofCalifornia, where the lawsuit was filed and where CKE has a highdensity of franchises, also has criminal statutes againstrestraint of trade.

Luis Bautista, a Carl's Jr. shift leader, and Margarita Guerrero,a former shift leader, filed the suit on behalf of all current andformer CKE restaurant-level managers. Both allege long andunpredictable hours, heavy responsibilities, "atrocious" workingconditions, and broken promises on wage increases. Mr. Bautistaalleged that the no-hire agreement was common knowledge amongshift leaders at CKE restaurants, and that employment applicationsexplicitly asked about prior experience at other CKE franchises.

"Consistent with Puzder's philosophy and CKE's structure, the nohire agreement suppresses wages and working conditions to ensurethat franchisees make money," the lawsuit argues. They areseeking a permanent bar on the no hire agreement, along withrestitution and damages.

CKE has paid millions of dollars in class-action settlements withits workers in the past. Its executive vice president and generalcounsel, Charles "Chip" Seigel, responded in a written statementthat the lawsuit was "baseless" and "obviously intended to be anattempt, albeit a feeble one, to derail the nomination of AndyPuzder."

All persons or entities in the United States and its territories and/or their assignees (partial or otherwise) who purchased Provigil in any form directly from Cephalon at any time during the period from June 24, 2006 through August 31, 2012 (the "Class").

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, and their officers,directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, andall federal governmental entities.

COMCAST CORP: Certification of Class Sought in "McDougal" Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JON MCDOUGAL, and DAVIDFIESSINGER, JR., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others SimilarlySituated v. COMCAST CORPORATION, Case No. 9:16-cv-81906-DMM (S.D.Fla.), seeks certification of this class: "All persons who arebilled for fees not owed to Defendant, including 'Modem/Leased'fees."

The Plaintiffs allege that Comcast charges them and otherconsumers for a "lease" on the cable modems that they and otherconsumers already own. The Plaintiffs argue that Comcast has noright to collect a "lease" on property that it does not own.

CORECIVIC: Prison Recorded Lawyer-Client Meetings, Faces Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Debra Cassens Weiss at ABA Journal reports more than 700 attorney-client visits at a federal prison in Kansas were likely recordedon video, according to a court-appointed special master who wasasked to investigate.

Special master David Cohen drew that conclusion after reviewingrecordings made during 30 attorney visits at the prison inLeavenworth and finding that every visit had been recorded, theTopeka Capital-Journal reports. Based on the limited review, heconcluded that all of the 700-plus lawyer-client meetings during a12-week period apparently had been recorded.

The recordings did not contain audio, according to previouscoverage. The prison was run by a private operator, theCorrections Corporation of America.

Cohen said in his Jan. 31 report (PDF) that privileged attorney-client material was recorded in five of seven meeting rooms thatwere equipped with cameras at the prison in Leavenworth, Kansas.There were 14,000 hours of recordings in those rooms during the12-week period in question, and it would be too difficult to viewall of the recordings to figure out which recordings involvedattorney-client meetings, he said.

The U.S. Attorney's office has acknowledged obtaining the video,but says it was not viewed by any employee of the office or anylaw enforcement agent.

There has also been evidence that phone calls between inmates andtheir lawyers were recorded, even when the lawyers had providedtheir phone numbers and asked that their phone calls not berecorded. Cohen has said his analysis of more than 48,000 recordedphone calls found that more than 200 of those calls were made to aknown attorney number.

The prison was operated by Corrections Corporation of America. Itssuccessor, CoreCivic, was named as a defendant in a class actionsuit filed that seeks to represent all lawyers whosecommunications with inmates at the prison were "intercepted,disclosed or used," Law360 (sub. req.) reports. The suit alsonames as a defendant the company that operates the phone system,Securus Technologies.

The issue emanated from a program dubbed Yoga for Trade, in whichCorePower gave memberships to yoga class students who would agreeto work a two- to three-hour weekly shift as a cleaner.

CorePower started to phase out the program in 2013, allowing theformer Yoga for Trade students to be part of the so-called StudioExperience Team, in which they continued to work their weeklyshifts for an hourly wage. However, the students alleged thatthey were required to apply a large portion of their wages towardthe purchase of a discounted CorePower membership.

The lawsuit alleged that these programs resulted in the "students"under both programs being paid below minimum wage standards understate and federal law. The Denver, Colorado-based CorePowerdenied any wrongdoing.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James conditionally certified aclass of California yoga studio students who worked under the Yogafor Trade and Studio Experience Team programs, as well as acollective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of StudioExperience Team students, for purposes of approving thesettlement.

Under the agreement, 65 percent of the net settlement amount willbe allocated to the California class, estimated to include about2,700 Yoga for Trade students, some of whom overlap with anestimated 4,900 Studio Experience team students. The remainderwill go to the approximately 6,800 Yoga for Trade studentsestimated to be in the FLSA collective outside of California,according to the magistrate judge's preliminary approval order.

Before fees and costs, California Yoga for Trade class memberswill receive $9.34 per workweek worked, and Studio Experience Teamclass members will receive $1.17 per workweek worked, according tothe order. The FLSA collective Yoga for Trade class members willreceive $4.60 per workweek worked.

A fairness hearing on whether to give final approval to thesettlement is scheduled for June.

Plaintiff William Walsh originally filed the class action inOctober.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requestsfor comment on Feb. 15.

Christopher Klein's amended complaint alleges that the Defendant,a debt collector, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692. The Plaintiff obtained a creditreport that included a debt of $104 that originated with BrightHouse Networks and that was "apparently owned or in collectionswith the Defendant."

The Plaintiff claims that by "soliciting" him and other putativeclass members in the prerecorded message to call the Defendant'scollections specialist, so that the Defendant could continuecollection efforts on the debt, without disclosing in the pre-recorded message that the message was from a debt collector in anattempt to collect a debt, the Defendant violated Section1692e(11) of the FDCPA.

In the motion, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails tostate a claim because the pre-recorded message, which was inresponse to the Plaintiff's call, was not a "communication" asdefined in the FDCPA, and was not made in an attempt "to collect adebt." In the alternative, the Defendant argues that given theallegation in the amended complaint that the credit report showedthat the debt in question was owned by or in collection with theDefendant, any failure to disclose that the Plaintiff was callinga debt collector was immaterial and therefore not actionable.

The Plaintiff responds that the Defendant's pre-recorded message,which sought to induce the Plaintiff's payment, was a"communication attempting to collect a debt," as those terms aredefined by the FDCPA. The Plaintiff also argues that Section1692e(11) violations are always material.In her Memorandum and Order dated February 15, 2017, available athttps://is.gd/sYj0Jx from Leagle.com, Judge Fleissig hold that thedisclosure requirements of Section 1692a(11) do not apply when, asthe instant case, the consumer initiates communication with aparty an unsophisticated consumer would have known was a debtcollector. The Court was unable to find any cases suggesting thata pre-recorded message such as the one alleged here, in responseto a call initiated by the consumer to a debt collector,implicated Section 1692e(11).

Cynosure, an aesthetic laser procedures company, was alleged tohave sent thousands of faxes to ARcare Inc. The class actionlawsuit was settled in a Massachusetts federal court. ARcare is anonprofit organization located in Arkansas.

"There were hundreds of thousands of unsolicited faxadvertisements sent," David Klein, a managing partner with Klein,Moynihan and Turco, told Legal Newsline. "Cynosure did not have anestablished business relationship with the plaintiff and did notinclude the requisite opt-out language that is required underTCPA."

The complaint defines an established business relationship as "aprior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-waycommunication between a person or entity and a business orresidential subscriber with or without an exchange ofconsideration, on the basis of an inquiry, application, purchaseor transaction by the business or residential subscriber regardingproducts or services offered by such person or entity, whichrelationship has not been previously terminated by either party."

ARcare claimed that it was sent unsolicited faxes from Cynosurewithout written consent. According to the settlement, Cynosureattempted to send its advertisements to upwards of 76,000different fax numbers between July 27, 2012, and Aug. 2, 2016.

The TCPA was violated due to the fact that the faxes were sentwithout ARcare's consent and without any opt-out language on thefaxes. The opt-out notice is usually provided on the first page ofa fax in order to comply with TCPA requirements.

According to the complaint, "The fax advertises a seminarfeaturing Cynosure's products. The fax informs the recipient thatthe seminar will provide up close and personal insight to theindustry's most innovative laser procedures and marketing toolsand that special promotions are available exclusively for seminarattendees."

ARcare claimed that the unsolicited faxes disrupted its dailyoperations and cost it ink and paper. ARcare also claimed thatCynosure's faxes also took up time that would have otherwise beenspent on its business.

In terms of the settlement amount reached, Klein said, "They mostlikely started at a larger number and worked down."

He added, "Cynosure faced an uphill battle" in fighting thecomplaint.

In regards to the settlement agreement, Cynosure will produce asettlement fund of $16 million, agreed upon in mediation of thetwo parties. A final settlement approval hearing has not yet beenset.

DELANO FARMS: $6MM Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay------------------------------------------------------------Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that a magistrate judgegranted preliminary approval on Feb. 14 to a $6 million class-action settlement resolving claims that certain workers at DelanoFarms Co. were denied wages, ending years of litigation that hasincluded hundreds of depositions and hundreds of thousands ofpages of documents filed.

The settlement was reached between the workers, Delano Farms andvarious contractors -- including Cal-Pacific Farm Management LP,T&R Bangi's Agricultural Services Inc. and Kern Ag LaborManagement Inc. -- in November and would resolve wage-and-hourclaims on behalf of agricultural grape workers who worked for thecontractors at Delano Farms starting as early as July 2005.Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng preliminarily approved thesettlement on Feb. 14, adding that the parties have engaged inlengthy class and merits-based discovery that has included morethan 160 depositions and the production of more than 500,000 pagesof documents.

"It's a great result for farm workers who were denied their wageswhile working for Delano farms and the labor contractors,"Mario Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- an attorney forthe plaintiffs, told Law360 on Feb. 15. "It was a great resultfor holding companies accountable for violations they commit witha very vulnerable population of the workforce."

The court also granted the plaintiffs' request to certify thesettlement class, which included nonexempt agricultural employeesof the contractors in the case who performed work at Delano Farmsin California starting on July 17, 2005, and who did not opt out.The class excluded, however, those who worked only as tractordrivers, irrigators or swampers, or those who only worked in coldstorage, according to the judge's order.

Judge Seng added that the entry of the order grantingcertification was without prejudice to the defendants' rights tooppose certification of a litigation class in the case should thesettlement agreement not be finally approved.

The workers claimed that the defendants failed to record and payfor off-the-clock work performed prior to the shift, at the end ofthe shift and in taking grape trays to wash at home. The workersalso alleged that the defendants didn't provide them withnecessary tools and equipment, among other claims.

Miles A. Yanick -- myanick@sbwllp.com -- an attorney for DelanoFarms, said that while he was able to settle for a figure hisclient was happy with, his client's argument was that there was nocompanywide policy resulting in any wage and hour violations.

"Because there was no companywide policy at issue, then there wasno way to prove classwide liability and damages, and that was ourcentral point," he said.

Counsel for the contractors did not immediately respond torequests for comment on Feb. 15.

The Plaintiff and appellant, Brigette Blair was employed bydefendant and respondent Dole Food Company, Inc., from September2012 until her employment was terminated on January 21, 2014. Shewas an exempt employee, paid on a salaried basis. After providingnotice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency(LWDA), Blair filed the putative class action, alleging that Doleviolated the Labor Code by failing to maintain proper payrollrecords, and by failing to identify the accurate rate of pay onwage statements.

Dole answered the complaint and asserted various affirmativedefenses, including that it had not "knowingly and intentionally"failed to provide accurate wage statements.

Dole filed a motion seeking summary judgment or, in thealternative, summary adjudication. The court agreed to adjudicatewhether Blair's claim for violation of section 226, subdivision(a) failed as a matter of law because: (1) Dole's use of a uniquepayroll identification number satisfied the requirements ofsection 226, subdivision (a)(7), and (2) section 226, subdivision(a) does not require an employer to list the hourly rate ofvacation pay and/or paid time off on wage statements for exemptemployees when vacation wages are paid.

The court issued a written ruling in March 2015 finding that Dolehad not violated section 226. And, although the issue was notencompassed within the scope of the parties' stipulation, thecourt also found that Dole's failure to include Blair's payrollidentification number on her final wage statement -- which hadbeen generated outside the company's standard payroll cycle andprocedures at the time of Blair's termination -- was inadvertent,and granted summary judgment.

The trial court summarily adjudicated the stipulated issues infavor of the employer. However, the court then went further,addressed an issue the parties had not agreed to have adjudicated,and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. Theemployee maintains the trial court erred in every respect.

On appeal, Blair appeals from the judgment entered on March 13,2015, contending that Dole violated its obligation underCalifornia law to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Blairalso contends that the trial court erred in exceeding the boundsof the parties' stipulation under former Code of Civil Proceduresection 437c, subdivision (s) by granting summary judgment.In an Order dated February 15, 2017 available athttps://is.gd/drJH8M from Leagle.com, the acting presiding judgefound no error as to the trial court's grant of summaryadjudication on the two stipulated issues. However, the courterred in granting summary judgment as to the entire action.

The judgment is affirmed to the extent the trial court adjudicatedin Dole's favor the two issues submitted under former Code ofCivil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (s), and concluded thatDole's use of a unique payroll identification number satisfied therequirements of section 226, subdivision (a)(7), and that section226, subdivision (a) does not require an employer to list thehourly rate of vacation pay and/or paid time off on wagestatements for exempt employees when vacation wages are paid.

The judgment is reversed insofar as the trial court adjudicated inDole's favor its affirmative defense of inadvertence and found notriable issue as to Blair's claim that Dole's failure to includeinformation required by Labor Code section 226 on Blair's finalwage statement violated section 226 and PAGA.

Accordingly, the matter is remanded for further proceedings onthat claim.

EMERY FEDERAL: Gets Okay to Compel Discovery From Plaintiffs------------------------------------------------------------Nicholas Gueguen at Legal Newsline reports a defendant in an Ohioclass action was successful in an unusual discovery move seekingto identify the scope of a possible class, which will affect itsdefense strategy, a Carlton Fields attorney says.

Emery Federal Credit Union has been sued for allegedly violatingthe Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. According to the order,which was filed Jan. 17 on the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of Ohio, Western Division, the plaintiffsalleged that Emery was paid cash and/or marketing services theyallege to be a sham for business referrals to Genuine Title LLC, acompany that offers title services.

Carlton Fields attorney Thaddeus Ewald, who co-wrote a blog postwith D. Matthew Allen about the order, told Legal Newsline thatEmery likely submitted both the interrogatories and the motion tocompel answers from the plaintiffs so that Emery could prepare forwhen the plaintiffs would motion to certify the class.

"A complete understanding of the scope of the proposed classinfluences the defendant's strategy, resource allocation, and theultimate arguments it makes against the motion to certify," Ewaldsaid.

Ewald said Emery's move is unusual for defendants in putativeclass action cases.

"Generally speaking, the plaintiff is much more likely to pursue amotion to compel discovery in a putative class action than thedefendant, who is more likely to oppose broad discovery," Ewaldsaid.

According to the order, Emery sent the plaintiffs fiveinterrogatories, asking them to explain how they'll prove thatEmery received cash for each referral of each of the putativeclass members made to Genuine Title LLC.

Through these interrogatories, Emery also asked the plaintiffs toexplain how they'll prove that Genuine Title and Emery split anexact amount of money, and along with that, the amount of moneypaid; the amount of money paid that was split; the date that themoney was split and paid; who received the split payment; how thesplit fee was paid; and how they, their lawyers, the court or thejury will figure out the amount of money the plaintiffs allege wassplit.

Emery also asked the plaintiffs to explain how they will find outfor sure how diligently each putative class member investigatedtheir Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claim one year aftereach of their loans with Emery closed and after that one-yearperiod.

According to the order, Emery also sought answers from theplaintiffs about who would be in the putative class and whether itwould include individuals who currently know about their rights toprosecute a claim against Emery.

Also requested were individuals who received advertising,solicitation, or communication from the plaintiffs' counsel aboutthe case or proceedings in Maryland, where the putative classaction against Emery originated in 2013. Emery also wanted to knowwhether the plaintiffs planned to include individuals who did notreceive referrals to Genuine Title and individuals who werereferred to Genuine Title, but the employees who made thereferrals were not rewarded with cash or anything else for thosereferrals.

According to the order, finally, Emery sought to know theplaintiff's plans for trial for issues that would be resolved ascommon issues for all putative class members and the course ofaction for resolving those issues, how they plan to resolve classrepresentative claims, including claims limitations that classrepresentatives can litigate, how they plan to resolve claims,including claims limitations, for class members who aren'tpresent, how plaintiffs' cases will go through trial, and juryinstructions that the plaintiffs would like to suggest and howthose instructions would account for individual damages rulingsand affirmative defenses.

Emery sent these interrogatories on Aug. 25.

Ewald said the relevant part of this decision was the discoveryorder.

"In granting Emery's motion to compel, the court ordered theplaintiffs to respond to Emery's interrogatory asking whethercertain types of plaintiffs would be included within theirproposed class," Ewald said.

"The plaintiffs had stated they planned to provide the classdefinition at the time they moved for class certification, so thisorder merely accelerated the timeline under which they wouldclarify the scope of their putative class."

Defendants collectively operate a network of bars and restaurantsin the New Orleans French Quarter where Weber seeks to represent aclass of restaurant employees claiming unpaid overtime pay forhours rendered in excess of 40 per work week.

FLORIDA, USA: Casey Moves for Certification of Prisoners Class--------------------------------------------------------------Brian M. Casey moves the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida to certify these actions as class action:

Mr. Casey alleges that he has been denied access to prisonadministrative remedies and medical care for the injuries hesustained. He asserts that the Defendants have denied his FirstAmendment rights to access the Courts since his arrest in 2010.

Pamela Jo Bondi serves as the current Attorney General of Florida.

Mr. Casey is currently incarcerated at Martin CorrectionalInstitution, in Indiantown, Florida.

all Independent Distributors, who distribute fresh bakery products for Defendants, Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of Bradenton, LLC, Flowers Baking Company of Villa Rica, L.L.C., and any other bakeries, affiliates or subsidiaries of Flowers Foods, Inc., within the state of Florida or Georgia.

Flowers misclassified its "Independent Distributor" employees orIDs as independent contractors, who were not eligible for overtimeunder the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff alleges.

Mr. Martins also asks the Court to require the Defendant toproduce in an electronic or computer-readable format the fullname, address(es), phone numbers, social security numbers, e-mailaddress(es), dates and warehouse/bakery locations worked for eachcollective members, and to approve the proposed notice and consentto join forms.

FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Throttle Deceleration Defect--------------------------------------------------------Linda Chiem at Law360 reports Ford Motor Co. was hit with a newproposed class action in California federal court on February 15alleging it failed to warn customers that certain Mustangs,Lincolns and other Ford models had defective throttles that causedthe vehicles to spontaneously stall or decelerate.

Customers who owned or leased certain Ford Mustang, Edge, LincolnMKX and F-150 models equipped with a Delphi sixth-generationelectronic throttle body launched the suit claiming Ford concealedand failed to disclose to consumers that it knew about thethrottle defects in the hope that Ford's limited warranty wouldexpire before consumers became aware of the problem.

Plaintiffs Fernando Aviles, Barry Kiery, Michael Kelder and JamesCowen complained that the cars would spontaneously stall orsuddenly decelerate to a near-idle speed. The abrupt decelerationoften happened when traveling at highway speeds and often causednear-accidents or life-threatening situations, particularlybecause driving in a highway passing lane or congested trafficwhere navigating a disabled vehicle to a shoulder or differentlane can be extremely dangerous, according to the complaint.

"Upon information and belief, Ford has known of the aforementionedproblems with the Delphi Gen 6 electronic throttle body since atleast as early as 2009, but has failed to disclose this materialinformation to the owners and purchasers of class vehicles," thesuit says. "Ford first learned that the specific Delphi Gen 6 ETBsplaced in class vehicles were defective soon after the vehicleswere released in 2011."

Customer complaints began streaming in years ago to Ford and theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the throttledefects, the complaint alleges.

In January 2014, Ford investigated identical safety complaintsabout a specific version of the Delphi sixth-generation electronicthrottle body that was installed in different Ford vehicles andFord claimed then to have discovered and resolved a defect withthe throttle body in those vehicles, the plaintiffs claimed.

Ford, however, did not resolve the problems with the materiallyidentical versions of the Delphi sixth-generation electronicthrottle bodies within the vehicles at the center of the instantclass action. Instead, Ford continued to sell a significant numberof vehicles with defective ETBs that present enormous safetyrisks, the plaintiffs alleged.

"Despite its knowledge of these defects, Ford failed to disclose,concealed and continues to conceal, this critical information fromplaintiffs and the other members of the class even though, at anypoint in time, it could have done so through individualcorrespondence, media release or any other means," the complaintsaid. "Plaintiffs and the other class members justifiably reliedon Ford to disclose these material defects in the Ford vehiclesthat they purchased or leased, as such defects were hidden and notdiscoverable through reasonable efforts by plaintiffs and theother class members."

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a nationwide and statewideclasses of Alabama, California and Florida residents who owned orleased the affected Ford vehicles.

Earlier this week, Ford and an Explorer owner accusing the autogiant of not warning customers that some of its vehiclesunexpectedly decelerated asked the Southern District of Californiato move the suit to the state's Central District, where a similarsuit is playing out.

Silvia Franco's January suit alleges that her 2012 Ford Exploreris one of a number of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles withdefective electronic throttle body control systems that cause theautomobiles to suddenly and unintentionally decelerate. She claimsthe auto giant has known about the "potentially deadly" problemfor a long time, but has tried to keep it from consumers.

Franco contends that she was driving the Explorer she bought in2014 on California's Interstate 5 in June when the vehiclesuddenly decelerated without warning. It has happened twice sincethen, according to court documents.

The issue stems from the electronic throttle control, whichelectronically connects the accelerator pedal to the throttle tocontrol airflow to the engine, the suit claims. If the controlisn't working properly, electronic signals misinterpret theposition of the vehicle's throttle, causing the car tounintentionally decelerate, the complaint alleges.

In a statement to Law360 on February 16, Ford maintained that ithas long prioritized safety.

"Safety continues to be one of the highest priorities in thedesign of our vehicles and we take the safety of our customersvery seriously," the company said. "While we cannot comment onpending litigation, we will respond through the appropriatechannels."

GALENA BIOPHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Feb. 16 disclosed that ithas filed a class action lawsuit in the United States DistrictCourt for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class (the"Class") consisting of persons and entities that acquired GalenaBiopharma, Inc. ("Galena" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GALE)securities between August 11, 2014 and January 31, 2017, inclusive(the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no laterthan April 14, 2017, to serve as lead plaintiff. Please contactLesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or atshareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, aswell as failed to disclose material adverse facts about theCompany's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company violatedvarious statutes in connection with its sales of Abstral; (2)that, as such, the Company was exposed to civil and criminalliability; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'statements about Galena's business, operations, and prospects,were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 9, 2015 Galena disclosed plans to "divest itscommercial business," which included the Company's breakthroughcancer pain drug, Abstral. On this news, the price of Galenacommon stock fell $0.19 per share, or 11%, to close at $1.53 pershare on November 10, 2015, thereby injuring investors.

Thereafter, on March 10, 2016, the Company disclosed that "[a]federal investigation of two of the high-prescribing physiciansfor Abstral has resulted in the criminal prosecution of the twophysicians for alleged violations of the federal False Claims Actand other federal statutes," and that the Company had received atrial subpoena for documents in connection with thatinvestigation. The Company further disclosed that "othergovernmental agencies may be investigating our Abstral promotionpractices," and that "on December 16, 2015, we received a subpoenaissued by the U.S. Attorney's Office in District of New Jerseyrequesting the production of a broad range of documents pertainingto our marketing and promotional practices for Abstral." On thisnews, the price of Galena common stock fell 3.3%.

Finally, on January 31, 2017, the Company announced theresignation of Mark W. Schwartz, who was with the Company at thetime of the disclosures, from his positions as President, ChiefExecutive Officer, and a member of the Board of Directors. On thisnews, the price of Galena common stock fell 22.4%, thereby furtherinjuring investors.

If you purchased shares of Galena during the Class Period you maymove the Court no later than April 14, 2017 to ask the Court toappoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class youneed not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel ofyour choice or take no action and remain an absent member of theClass. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if youhave any questions concerning this announcement or your rights orinterests with respect to these matters, please contact LesleyPortnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 CenturyPark East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310)201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit ourwebsite at www.glancylaw.com.

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------WeissLaw LLP on Feb. 15 disclosed that a class action wascommenced in the United States District Court for the District ofDelaware on behalf of shareholders of Genworth Financial, Inc.(GNW) ("Genworth") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection withthe proposed acquisition of Genworth by China Oceanwide HoldingsGroup Co., Ltd. ("China Oceanwide").

On October 23, 2016, Genworth and China Oceanwide announced thatthey had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to whichChina Oceanwide will acquire all outstanding shares of Genworth ina transaction valued at approximately $2.7 billion (the "ProposedTransaction"). Under the terms of the agreement, Genworthshareholders will receive $5.43 in cash for each Genworth sharethey own. The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of thenamed plaintiff and all Genworth shareholders. The plaintiff isrepresented by WeissLaw, which has extensive expertise inprosecuting investor class actions.

The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholderapproval for the merger, the defendants filed a materially falseand/or misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC in violation of theExchange Act. The omitted and/or misrepresented information isbelieved to be material to Genworth shareholders' ability to makean informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than sixty days from February 15, 2017. If you wish todiscuss this action or have any questions concerning this noticeor your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-mail atstockinfo@weisslawllp.com. Any member of the putative class maymove the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of theirchoice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent classmember.

WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class andderivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciaryduties. We have recovered over a billion dollars for defraudedclients and obtained important corporate governance relief in manyof these cases. If you have information or would like legaladvice concerning possible corporate wrongdoing please email us atstockinfo@weisslawllp.com

Plaintiffs Kaylan Stuart, Dustin Murilla, Walter Chruby, and RockyHobbs are appointed as representatives of this class, the "FCAClass," which is certified to pursue a common claim under theFederal Communications Act:

All persons in the United States who, at any time within the applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any interstate calls.

Excluded from the proposed Class are any persons who paid to use Global Tel*Link's inmate calling services in order to make or receive telephone calls from a correctional facility in New Jersey.

Judge Brooks also certified these subclasses (the "UE Subclasses")to pursue claims for unjust enrichment under the laws of thespecified states, with the referenced Plaintiff appointed as therepresentative of the subclass:

The Arkansas UE Subclass (Kaylan Stuart): All persons who, while in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Vermont or West Virginia, within the applicable limitations period, paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls.

The Minnesota UE Subclass (Dustin Murilla): All persons who, while in Minnesota, Alaska, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah or Washington, within the applicable limitations period, paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls.

The Pennsylvania UE Subclass (Walter Chruby): All persons who, while in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia or Wisoncsin, within the applicable limitations period, paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls.

The Texas UE Subclass (Rocky Hobbs): All persons who, while in Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Dakota or Oklahoma, within the applicable limitations period, paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the interstate calls.

The Court further orders that Notice to the Class, in a formapproved by the Court, will be disseminated in accordance with aNotice program to be approved by the Court following considerationof the parties' proposal(s) for the form and manner of Notice,which proposal(s) shall be submitted to the Court within 14 daysof the date of the order.

GOOGLE INC: Sued in Locksmith Operations Antitrust Suit-------------------------------------------------------A group of thirteen locksmith operations from eleven states andWashington DC have joined Baldino's Lock & Key of Newington,Virginia in US District Court in DC in an amended complaintalleging that the three major search engines, Google, Bing, andYahoo which together dominate the search market, flood theirsearch results with false listings and fictitious map businessaddresses.

Defendants sought and received an Order for an extension of timeto respond to the Complaint. Defendants' response is due on orbefore February 24, 2017.

GR OPCO: Faces "Alvarez" Labor Lawsuit in Florida-------------------------------------------------NANCY ALVAREZ, on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarlysituated, Plaintiff, vs. GR OPCO, LLC d/b/a E11EVEN MIAMI, aFlorida limited liability company, and DENNIS DEGORI, anindividual, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20490-DPG (S.D. Fla.,February 7, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs were misclassified asindependent contractors; employed by Defendants but paid nominimum or overtime wage; required to share tips with non-tippedemployees; and required to pay house fees for the right to work.All of these allegedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant GR OPCO, LLC d/b/a E11EVEN MIAMI is a Florida limitedliability company that has owned and operates the club E11EVENMIAMI. Plaintiff and the proposed collective action members wereemployed as adult entertainers.

HARBOR FREIGHT: Faces "Jackson" Class Suit in California--------------------------------------------------------A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Harbor FreightTools USA Inc. and Does 1 through 50. The case is captioned asStephen Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and Does 1 through 50,Case No. 34-2017-00207758-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., February 9,2017).

Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. is a privately held discount tooland equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California,which operates a chain of retail stores as well as a mail-orderand eCommerce business.

HARMAN INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Acquisition by Samsung------------------------------------------------------------Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action hasbeen commenced on behalf of holders of Harman InternationalIndustries, Incorporated common stock on January 10, 2017, inconnection with the acquisition of Harman by Samsung ElectronicsCo. Ltd. and certain of its affiliates. This action was filed inthe District of Connecticut and is captioned Baum v. HarmanInternational Industries, Incorporated, et al., No. 17-cv-00246.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this actionor have any questions concerning this notice or your rights orinterests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins ofRobbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail atdjr@rgrdlaw.com. Any member of the putative class may move theCourt to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

On November 14, 2016, Harman and Samsung announced they hadentered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "MergerAgreement"), under which Samsung would acquire all of theoutstanding shares of Harman common stock for $112 per share incash. In total, the Acquisition is worth approximately $8 billionto Harman stockholders.

On January 20, 2017, Harman filed a definitive proxy statement ona Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") with the SEC, announcing that thestockholder vote on the Acquisition would occur on February 17,2017. The complaint alleges that the Proxy misrepresents andomits material information needed by Harman stockholders to castan informed vote on the Acquisition. Specifically, the Proxyfails to disclose material information concerning: (a) Harman'sfinancial projections; (b) the financial analyses regarding thefairness of the Acquisition price that were performed by theBoard's financial advisors; (c) the process leading up to theexecution of the Merger Agreement; and (d) various separationtransactions to split Harman into multiple business groups thatthe Board was contemplating before Samsung expressed interest inan acquisition of Harman. Without this information, the Company'sstockholders are unable to make an informed decision whether tovote for or against the Acquisition. Defendants' failure todisclose this information renders the Proxy materially deficientin violation of Sec14(a) of the 1934 Act and also implicates abreach of the Board's fiduciary duties.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of holders of Harmancommon stock on January 10, 2017. The plaintiff is represented byRobbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecutinginvestor class actions including actions involving financialfraud.

HomeTeam developed a pest control system that involves buildinghomes with tube systems in the walls. HomeTeam enters into dealswith homebuilders for installation of the tube systems as thehomes are being built. Then, HomeTeam enters into contracts withhomeowners to "service" the systems (that is, to periodicallyspray pesticides into the ports).

Plaintiffs Jose Luis Garnica, who lives in Fresno, and CoraPotter, who lives in Bakersfield, both have tube systems in theirhomes. They contend that HomeTeam has violated the antitrust lawsby engaging in a variety of improper conduct to preventcompetitors from entering the market for servicing the tubesystems, which in turn has forced homeowners to pay HomeTeamsupracompetitive prices for tube service. In a related case thatis proceeding on the same track and in the same court, a companycalled Killian Pest Control, which has tried to compete withHomeTeam to service tube systems in Fresno and Bakersfield, hassued HomeTeam alleging the same antitrust violation.

In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs contend that there are 32distinct geographic markets for servicing tube systems throughoutthe country. One of those markets, they assert, includes bothFresno and Bakersfield. The Plaintiffs don't merely seek torepresent a class of homeowners in that market; they seek torepresent all homeowners with tube systems in all 32 allegedgeographic markets.

"The plaintiffs' presentation in support of class certification isrife with problems, and it's questionable whether any of theirexpert opinions would be admissible at trial. But in any event,their presentation fails at the threshold," Judge Chhabria said,among other things, in the Order. The Court notes that thefailure by the Plaintiffs to consider variance among markets (notto mention within individual markets), combined with the evidenceHomeTeam has submitted to suggest that such variance exists, hasprevented the Plaintiffs from meeting their burden to show thatcommon issues predominate.

At the upcoming case management conference, the Court will discusswith the parties whether it would be unfairly prejudicial toHomeTeam, at this late stage, to allow the Plaintiffs to seek tocertify a class of plaintiffs whose homes are in the geographicmarkets (as properly defined) in which the named Plaintiffsreside.

KPH CONSORTIUM: NDG Residents, Business People Join Turcot Suit---------------------------------------------------------------P.A. Sevigny, writing for The Suburban, reports that several NDGresidents and business people are joining the class action suitthat's already been filed against both the KPH Consortium andQuebec's MTQ -- the powerful Ministere des Transports du Quebec.

"We're seeking damages for lost revenue for all of the localbusiness people as well as for all the inconvenience that'saffected local residents who had to put up with all the pollution,the dust and the noise caused by the work that's being done toreplace the old Turcot Expressway," said Montreal Lawyer JoeyZukran. "There has to be some kind of compensation for all ofthese people who have been putting up with all of this for atleast the past two to three years."

During a Feb. 13 interview, Frank Berdah told The Suburban aboutall the pain he has had to put up with as he watched a successfulbusiness slowly die " . . . in front of my eyes."

As the owner of Decors Ora that's located on the corner of the St.Jacques Road and Addington, Mr. Berdah's business can be found atthe end of an improvised alley that lies behind a massive 25(linear) foot wall made up of several plywood sheets that blockthe store's view of the massive Turcot Project construction site.

"Although I agree that the construction had to happen," saidMr. Berdah, ". . . people should know that the project'sconstruction cost me at least $150,000 in lost revenue and anotherfive people their jobs."

According to Mr. Zukran, the construction had been going on foryears and all the evidence points out to the fact that both theKPH and the MTQ ignored Mr. Berdah's complaints about what washappening to his neighborhood as well as his business.

"They're playing ping pong with my head," said Mr. Berdah. "Afterawhile, you have to do something to get their attention."

Although the lawsuit was filed only a week ago, Mr. Zukran isconfident that several local residents will step up in order tojoin Mr. Berdah and others who have had to put up with a lot ofassorted annoyance over the past two years.

"All they have to do is to find my site on the web, www.lpclex.comor email jzukran@lpclex.com in order to learn more about thelawsuit," he said. "After that, it's all up to the courts."

LIVANOVA: Faces Suit Over 3T Heater-Cooler------------------------------------------Roopal Luhana at The Legal Examiner reports a new class actionlawsuit was filed against 3T heater-cooler device manufacturerLivaNova, formerly Sorin Group Deutschland GMBH, on January 24,2017. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of South Carolina, Columbia Division.

The plaintiff asserts that he and other class action members wereunknowingly exposed to a potentially fatal bacteria during openchest surgery from the use of the 3T heater-cooler. He seeks classaction certification, and actual and punitive damages.

The plaintiff who filed the case is a South Carolina resident. OnMarch 13, 2014, he underwent an open-heart surgery. A Sorin 3Theater-cooler device was used during his surgery, which regulatesbody temperature in the patient during the procedure. Theplaintiff alleges that device exposed him to a nontuberculousmycobacterium (NTM), a serious and potentially deadly bacteriathat can cause antibiotic-resistant infections.

The Sorin 3T system came onto the market in 2006, and was designedto provide temperature-controlled water to heat exchanger devices,like thermal regulating blankets, which warm or cool a patientduring bypass procedures lasting six hours or less. Not long afterit was released on the market, however, hospitals began to reportproblems with the device.

South Carolina Patients at Risk for NTM Infection

The representative plaintiff in this case underwent surgery atPalmetto Health Richland Hospital, and seeks class members who hadsurgery at this hospital or at Greenville Health Hospital System.

In around June 2014, Greenville Health announced that about 14patients had tested positive for a rare NTM infection, known as M.abscessus. Most of those patients were exposed to the bacteriaduring open chest surgeries. The hospital added that there hadbeen three deaths resulting from the same infection.

That same month, the hospital released a second statementindicating there were 15 confirmed cases of patients with theinfection, and that the patient death toll had increased to four.In July 2014, it sent out letters to about 180 patients notifyingthem of a potential risk of infection from the heater-coolerdevice.

FDA Warns of Potential Infection Risk

As news of these potential infections spread, additional hospitalsbecame aware of the risks associated with the 3T heater-coolerdevice. Several hospitals sent out warning letters, notifyingpatients to watch for symptoms like night sweats, muscle aches,weight loss, unexplained fever, and difficulty breathing.

In October 2016, the FDA released a safety communication warningthat surgery with the 3T heating-cooling devices had been linkedwith M. chimaera infections, and warned doctors and hospitals toimmediately remove any of the devices that tested positive for thebacteria.

Then, in December 2016, the plaintiff's hospital, Palmetto Health,announced that hundreds of its patients were potentially exposedto the rare bacteria during open-chest surgeries. They also sentletters to individual patients to inform them that they may be atrisk.

The NTM is a slow-growing bacterium that can take from a few weeksto four years to manifest into a diagnosable infection. Theseinfections can cause pulmonary or cardiovascular disease. Theheating-cooling devices were initially linked to the infectionsvia tests that confirmed that the bacteria came from oneparticular manufacturing site.

The plaintiff seeks class action certification to include allindividuals in the state of South Carolina who went through anopen-chest surgery at Greenville Health or Palmetto Health sinceJanuary 1, 2011, and who are currently asymptomatic for an NTMinfection. Claims of actual injury from the infection are excludedfrom this class action.

Steven Chernus of Pennsylvania and Ed Shapiro of New Jersey fileda complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Jan. 31 in U.S. District Court for the District of NewJersey against Logitech Inc. of Newark, California, alleging thedefendant manufactured and distributed defective alert systems tothe consumers.

According to the complaint, Chernus and Shapiro suffered monetarydamages from purchasing a product that was poorly made. Theplaintiffs allege Logitech failed to inform the consumers of thehigh rate failure of the systems as well as failure to fix thesoftware needed to run the product, which contains bugs andglitches.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Case number3:17-cv-00673-FLW-TJB

LOUISIANA HEART: Faces Suit by Laid Off Employees-------------------------------------------------Rob Krieger at Fox 8 reports former employees of the LouisianaHeart Hospital hope to file a class action lawsuit against thehospital after they were unexpectedly laid off when the hospitalfiled for bankruptcy.

It was standing room only at the Southern Hotel in Covington,where more than 100 former employees -- and some who are stilloperating various clinics on the North Shore -- turned out tolearn about their legal options in a meeting hosted by the lawfirm Bruno & Bruno.

"We have been somewhat inundated by phone calls from very nervousindividuals, doctors, employees of the Heart Hospital," saidattorney Robert Bruno.

Some employees haven't left the job yet as they continue to workat small clinics in the hospital's network. They said the last fewweeks have been unnerving.

"We still have to deal with patients that are calling every day,wondering where their doctors are going to. They're worried, thepatients are worried, and so are the doctors. The doctors areworried, the doctors are more worried about their patients thanthey are themselves," said Jenny Harbour, an employee who works ata clinic but will be out of a job at the end of the month.

For some former employees, the future is unknown as they try tofigure out where they'll get their next paycheck.

"You have so many people saturating the local economy looking forjobs, it's not easy. Yes, some of us have been offered jobs, butin many cases, it's an hour or an hour and a half away," saidformer employee Faith Cassidy.

Employees said one of their biggest issues is the loss of theirpaid time off. Vacation hours they've earned over the years seemsto have evaporated and the hospital hasn't offered any way to fillthe gap between jobs.

"[I lost] close to $14,000 to $15,000 between severance andvacation time. That's a lot, enough to get anyone through a coupleof months, and now we're all looking for jobs. I have aninterview, but along with seven or eight of my co-workers. We'reall looking for the same job," said Jill Tarzia.

It's one reason Bruno believes his firm can help the hundreds ofemployees left out in the cold as the future of the HeartHospital's network on the North Shore seems to crumble.

"Our job is to really play detective and find out if there anyother angles, any other people out there with any connectionswhere we could possibly find wrongdoing and get into some of theirpockets. Find out who may have known or who may have contributedto the goings-on," Bruno said.

FOX 8 reached out to the Heart Hospital for comment, but theorganization did not respond to our request.

MEDICAL MUTUAL: More Entities Join Class Action Over Service Fees-----------------------------------------------------------------Jon Wysochanski, writing for The Chronicle-Telegram, reports thatLorain County and cities of Lorain and Elyria have joined a class-action lawsuit against Medical Mutual of Ohio which accuses theinsurance company of charging hidden service fees to fund aCleveland Clinic incentive program.

The suit was filed Feb. 14 in the Lorain County Court of CommonPleas by attorney Eric Zagrans, who is representing Lorain County,Elyria and Lorain.

Mr. Zagrans said it is believed that more than 500 other entitiesacross the state, including Lorain County, Elyria and Lorain, mayhave fallen victim to a scheme in which hidden and unexplainedfees were charged and used to pay incentive payments to ClevelandClinic-affiliated doctors.

Mr. Zagrans said the Cleveland Clinic, which is not a party in thelawsuit, entered into a program called Quality Alliance severalyears ago in an effort to improve quality of care given by clinic-affiliated doctors who aren't employed by the hospital.

"The clinic wanted to give the doctors who were affiliated anincentive to implement quality control measures, the same as whatthe employed doctors do at the clinic," Mr. Zagrans said.

Mr. Zagrans said it is believed Medical Mutual agreed to put moneytoward the Cleveland Clinic's payment obligations to affiliateddoctors on the Quality Alliance program. The suit alleges thatthe various counties and cities were never told of thearrangement, and the charges were passed on to those entities, whowere unwittingly left footing the bill for the incentive program.

Medical Mutual of Ohio could not immediately be reached forcomment regarding the lawsuit.

Mr. Zagrans said when an employer buys a product from an insurancecompany it can usually choose from two products.

In the first scenario, employers can purchase health insurance inwhich they pay a premium and the insurance company pays for thecost of all the covered services that employees of the employerneed.

The second scenario, which the lawsuit deals with, involvesadministrative services only, or ASOs, in which an employer self-funds health coverage.

Under an ASO, an employer is on the hook for paying for servicesand the insurance company is simply the claims processor oradministrator, which saves the employer the time and trouble ofworking through all the paperwork, processing all the medicalclaims and determining which doctor, hospital or pharmacy getspaid.

The lawsuit accuses Medical Mutual of burying hidden charges inbills that were not authorized or agreed to in ASO contracts.

It is believed the unexplained charges of $2.13 and $4.26 wereracking up for several years, Mr. Zagrans said. The scheme isbelieved to involve a significant amount of money and tens or evenhundreds of thousands of charges, he said.

"We won't know how much in total until we find out how manysimilarly situated cities and counties and governmental entitiesaround the state of Ohio were involved in this kind of arrangementand how much they overpaid," Mr. Zagrans said.

Mr. Zagrans said the charges are completely buried and hidden andan employer would never pick up on the charges unless they were tomanipulate the data in a particular way.

"This was discovered in the way the complainant describes, whichwas quite by accident," Mr. Zagrans said.

MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xbox Live Gold Service--------------------------------------------------------------Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a consumerhas filed a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp., citingalleged fraud and violation of state and federal law.

James Maher filed a complaint on Jan. 30 in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Illinois against Microsoftalleging that the Washington corporation failed to provide serviceto the plaintiff after being suspended from its Xbox Live Goldservice.

According to the complaint, Maher alleges that he suffered damagesfrom paying for a Xbox Live Gold, which was denied to him after hewas suspended. He holds Microsoft responsible because itallegedly failed to credit the service back into his account forthe time his account was suspended.

Maher requests a trial by jury and seeks enjoin the defendant,award the plaintiff and all similarly situated the pro rata amountof their Xbox Live Gold membership account fee, punitive damages,court costs and any further relief this court grants. He isrepresented by James X. Bormes and Catherine P. Sons of Law Officeof James X. Bormes, P.C. in Chicago and Kasif Khowaja of TheKhowaja Law Firm LLC in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Casenumber 1:17-cv-00753

The coalition says dozens of Montrealers have been treatedunfairly by the police and in some cases violently.

The coalition said the Montreal police have systematically refusedto eliminate racial profiling, adding that it is fed up with whatit said is declining interest from police to stop using race as afactor when investigating a potential suspect.

On Dec. 31, a 26-yr-old black man was shot in the back of the headand in his back downtown. He survived, but remains in hospital.Police said he shot at them first, but the coalition said that thefact he was shot in the back proves he was not an imminent threat.The coalition says there are about 10 cases of blatantdiscrimination by police over the past year.

"In cases where there is racial profiling, where there is abuse ofpower, arrest without justification, we have many cases and whenwe take these cases to the Ethics Commission, it's a waste oftime," said Dan Philip, president of the Black Coalition ofQuebec.

The Montreal police commander in Montreal North said on February15 night that he has zero tolerance for racial profiling, but thecoalition argued that has yet to happenAny class action would have to be approved by a judge first beforeit could be debated in court.

The case comes as the Quebec Human Rights Commission has ruled apolice officer must pay $17,000 in damages to a young black man.

NORTHERN DYNASTY: April 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set-------------------------------------------------------------Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a classaction lawsuit has been filed against Northern Dynasty MineralsLtd. and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of purchasersof Northern Dynasty securities between September 16, 2013 andFebruary 13, 2017, inclusive. Such investors are encouraged tojoin this case by visiting the firm's site:http://www.bgandg.com/nak.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants foralleged violations of the federal securities laws under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On February 14, 2017, Kerrisdale Capital Management released anarticle about Northern Dynasty alleging that Northern Dynasty'smain asset, the low-grade Pebble deposit, is not commerciallysustainable and that for several years the Company has beenconcealing this information from the investing public that thePebble project has a negative present value. Following this news,Northern Dynasty stock dropped $0.68 per share or over 21% toclose at $2.50 per share on February 14, 2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish toreview a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:http://www.bgandg.com/nak or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss inNorthern Dynasty you have until April 17, 2017 to request that theCourt appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in anyrecovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigationboutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit oflitigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition torepresenting institutions and other investor plaintiffs in classaction security litigation, the firm's expertise includes generalcorporate and commercial litigation, as well as securitiesarbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do notguarantee similar outcomes.

OKLAHOMA ENERGY: Bollenbach Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma---------------------------------------------------------------Bollenbach Enterprises Limited Partnership, on behalf of itselfand all others similarly situated v. Oklahoma Energy AcquisitionsLP, Alta Mesa Services LP, and Alta Mesa Holdings LP, Case No. CJ-17-00010, was removed from the District Court of Kingfisher Countyto the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma(Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00134-W to the proceeding.

ORACLE: Sales Employees File Class Action Over Lost Commissions---------------------------------------------------------------Sanford Heisler, LLP, along with co-counsel from Kastner Kim LLP,filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court in SanFrancisco against Redwood City-based Oracle, alleging that theSilicon Valley giant has stiffed its sales employees of millionsin earned commission wages by retroactively changing commissioncontracts. The complaint alleges that Oracle retroactivelyincreases quotas or decreases commission rates on past sales inorder to pay sales employees less than what their existingcompensation plans require. The lawsuit, Johnson v. OracleAmerica, Inc., seeks unpaid commission wages and waiting timepenalties and requests an injunction and other relief on behalf ofa class of California sales employees.

The class alleges that Oracle "re-plans" employees to reducecommissions earned on completed sales going back to any time ofOracle's choosing. When it "re-plans" employees after commissionwages have already been paid, according to the complaint, Oracleclaws back prior payments by withholding newly earned commissionsuntil the employees have paid the company back. The complaintalso describes Oracle's retroactive re-plans as a willful andsystematic scheme designed to align commissions with financialforecasts and bottom line goals.

By reducing and withholding commissions in such fashion, accordingto the complaint, Oracle's commission policies and practicesviolate numerous California Labor Code requirements and haveresulted in damages of over $150 million to California employeesover a four-year period.

David Sanford, chairman of Sanford Heisler and counsel forPlaintiff and the class, noted, "Oracle proudly touts itself as'treating each employee fairly and with dignity.' We look forwardto having a California jury determine whether Oracle lives up toits ideals, or, in fact, betrays them."

Plaintiff Marcella Johnson claims she was a typical sales employeesubjected to a retroactive re-plan that reduced her commissionpayments. Oracle demanded that Johnson pay back a substantialamount of her earned commissions that had been paid before the re-plan. "The lawsuit we have filed contends that Oracle hasessentially confiscated significant amounts of commission dollarsfrom its salesforce by retroactively changing the terms ofcommission contracts at will. We believe such a practice isgrossly unfair and violates California law," said Daniel Qualls ofKastner Kim, one of the lawyers representing the Plaintiff.

"California law does not allow a company to point to fine printthat supposedly allows it to reduce commissions after the fact,"said Xinying Valerian -- xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com -- SeniorLitigation Counsel at Sanford Heisler. "We think all employersshould honor the commission formulas that they have provided salesemployees and be held accountable for paying employees thecommission they have earned."

About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP is a public interest class-action litigationlaw firm with offices in New York, Washington, D.C, San Franciscoand San Diego. The Firm specializes in civil rights and generalpublic interest cases, representing plaintiffs with employmentdiscrimination, labor and wage violations, predatory lending,whistleblower, consumer fraud, and other claims. Along with afocus on class actions, the firm also represents individuals andhas achieved particular success in the representation ofexecutives in employment disputes. For more information go tohttp://www.sanfordheisler.com/or call 202 499-5200 or email dsanford@sanfordheisler.com.

The Defendant removed the action on the basis of federal questionjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1441(c), and 1446.

In the motion to remand, the Plaintiffs alleged that their state-law claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act (ERISA). The Defendant filed a response, arguingthat ERISA preemption applies to the second state-law claim in thePlaintiffs' amended class action complaint and requires removal.

The Defendant moved for a temporary stay of the proceedingspending review of three issues of law before the Nevada SupremeCourt: (1) whether "providing" health benefits as stated in theAmendment requires employers to make insurance available to theiremployees or, in the alternative, whether it requires employers toactively enroll their employees in offered health insurance plans;(2) whether an employee's tip-income should be factored into anemployee's gross taxable income for calculating insurancepremiums; and (3) whether the Amendment's silence as to a statuteof limitations means there is a "limitless" statute of limitationsfor claims brought under the Amendment or if instead NRS Section608.260's two-year statute of limitations applies.

In her Order dated February 15, 2017, available athttps://is.gd/JzPHWI from Leagle.com, Judge Du denied as moot themotion to stay because the issues raised by the Defendants arealready decided by the court ruling that (1) the Amendment'sdirection to "provide" health insurance requires that employersoffer health insurance, not enroll their employees in plans; (2) atwo-year statute of limitation applies to claims brought under theAmendment; and (3) employers may not factor in the employee's tip-income when calculating insurance premiums.

As to motion to remand filed by the Plaintiffs, the Court deniedit finding that complete preemption under ERISA is satisfied. TheDefendant is given leave to file a renewed motion to dismisswithin 30 days.

PIONEER CREDIT: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Kozak" Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Sara Kozak asks the Court to enter an order determining that theaction styled SARA KOZAK, formerly known as SARA LEMKE and SARAAZZALINE v. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00318(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendantpursuant to claims based on the Fair Debt Collection PracticesAct.

The Plaintiff brings the claim on behalf of a class that consistsof (a) all individuals in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin (b) whowere sent a letter in the form represented by Exhibit A (c) on orafter a date one year prior to the filing of this amendedcomplaint and on or before a date 21 days after its filing.

Ms. Kozak further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wet Wipes Buyers Seek Class Certification-----------------------------------------------------------Joyce Hanson and William Gorta, writing for Law360, report that agroup of California consumers asked for class certification onFeb. 15 in their suit against Procter & Gamble Co. over allegedfalse claims that its bathroom wipes are flushable, arguing theirsuit mirrors a class action in New York that a federal judge hassaid he intends to certify.

The proposed class of wipes buyers led by consumer Jamie Pettittold a California federal court that Procter & Gamble's CharminFreshmates product has forced municipalities throughout Californiato spend millions of dollars to fix problems created by the so-called flushable wipes that aren't actually suitable for flushing,arguing that U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein of New York hasfound that millions of consumers were exposed to identicalmisrepresentations on P&G's labels and purchased the samemislabeled product.

"This case is well-suited for class certification," Pettit said."In a similar case pending in New York, Judge Weinstein stated onFeb. 3, 2017, that he intended to certify a New York class ofFreshmates purchasers to pursue similar claims under New Yorklaw."

Calling it a "knife-edge" decision, Judge Weinstein said onFeb. 3 that he would certify two of six proposed class actionsaccusing Procter & Gamble, Kimberly-Clark, Costco and others ofmislabeling as "flushable" bathroom wipes that do not degradequickly enough.

Judge Weinstein said he would issue an order in 30 days approvinga suit entirely composed of New York plaintiffs as well as the NewYork plaintiffs in a multistate suit. He said the New York caseswere easier to certify because of the state's statutory damages of$50 per customer per purchase.

Judge Weinstein transferred two suits to their home states --Armstrong v. Costco Wholesale Corp. et al. to Oregon and Palmer v.CVS Health et al. to Maryland -- saying that the meaning toconsumers of the word "flushable" and the value ascribed to itwould likely differ from that in New York.

He dismissed another New York suit, Honigman v. Kimberly-Clark, asduplicative of one of the cases in which he indicated he wouldgrant certification. The sixth case, Richard v. Wal-Mart StoresInc. et al., was withdrawn Feb. 2, but Judge Weinstein noted thatit would have been transferred to New Hampshire were it notvoluntarily dismissed.

In the Pettit suit in California, the putative class alleges thatits expert's testing of the Freshmates wipes confirms they are notflushable and are environmentally unsound.

"For example, after subjecting both versions of the Freshmates toan agitation test for 30 minutes, neither version had broken intoany pieces, and neither version had even the first rip or tear,whereas three brands of toilet tissue dispersed into 1-inch piecesin less than three minutes," the proposed class said.

Pettit said the class should be certified because it met therequirements of Federal Rule 23 on numerosity, since purchasers ofFreshmates can be readily identified. The proposed class membersshare commonality because they were all prey to P&G's allegedlydeceptive advertising, Pettit said, adding that all class memberswere subject to the California Plumbing Code, which makes itillegal to flush "any other thing whatsoever that is capable ofcausing damage to the drainage system or public sewer."

Procter & Gamble in a Jan. 19 filing in the California court saidPettit's case involved her allegations that on several occasionsin 2014, her use of Freshmates clogged her toilet when flushed andrequired multiple flushes to clear her toilet bowl. But Pettithas resisted P&G's proposed inspection of her toilet and plumbing,the company said, comparing her case unfavorably to the ongoingcourt-ordered settlement discussions in one of the similar cases,Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co., implicating Freshmates in theEastern District of New York.

"P&G has sought entry into plaintiff's condominium unit to permitits plumbing expert to conduct a routine inspection of plaintiff'stoilet and plumbing," Procter & Gamble said. "Where P&G inspectedthat plaintiff's plumbing without incident, such an inspection islikely to yield evidence that is highly relevant to this case,including to P&G's defenses to class certification and on themerits."

Representatives for Pettit and Procter & Gamble didn't immediatelyrespond to requests for comment on Feb. 15.

Attorneys representing a nationwide class of supplement consumersfiled the suit in a New Jersey federal court. At issue isPrevagen, an over-the-counter Quincy product that's sold atpharmacies like Walgreens, CVS and Rite-Aid around the country.

The supplement's key ingredient is a protein typically found injellyfish that Quincy claims can improve consumers' memories andfoster a "sharper mind" and "clearer thinking." In the past, thecompany has even suggested that Prevagen could assuage thesymptoms of Alzheimer's disease.

The attorneys behind the lawsuit say that those claims are bunk.

"The only reason a consumer would purchase Prevagen is to obtainthe advertised brain function and memory benefits, which it doesnot provide," they write in the complaint. "Prevagen is asingular purpose product: its only purported benefit is to enhancebrain function and memory -- which it does not do."

The complaint says that no peer-reviewed evidence exists thatsupports the company's claims.

The lawsuit is hardly the first time that Prevagen's legitimacyhas been called into question, as The Isthmus outlined in a reportearlier this year.

Just last month, the Federal Trade Commission and New Yorkattorney general asked a judge to block sales of the supplement inthat state, also based on concerns of consumer fraud. In 2012,the Food and Drug Administration slapped the company on the wrist,saying that some of the company's marketing practices for Prevagenwere illegal and calling into question whether the product couldbe considered a supplement in the first place.

As it has in past scenarios, Quincy is staunchly defending itsproduct. In an emailed statement to the Capital Times, companyrepresentatives wrote that Prevagen delivers on its promises.

"We have an extensive body of research proving Prevagen usersexperience clinically meaningful and statistically significantimprovements in cognitive function and memory. We have anecdotalevidence, organic testimonials, and 'gold standard' testing," thestatement read.

The statement also questioned the motivations behind the lawsuit,declaring: "It is not an uncommon practice for third parties toseek financial gain at the expense of small businesses, which theyperceive to be vulnerable."

Attorneys behind the lawsuit declined to comment on the case.

QUORN FOOD: Settles Consumer Class Action in California-------------------------------------------------------A Class Action lawsuit has been filed in the Federal DistrictCourt for the district of Central California, alleging that QuornFoods, Inc., a manufacturer of vegetarian and vegan food products,misled consumers into buying products made from fermented mold (atype of fungi), not mushroom-based protein as plaintiff claims theproduct package implies. The plaintiff, Kimberly Birbrower,brought this action on behalf of all consumers in the UnitedStates that purchased Quorn Food Products between the January26th, 2012 through December 14th, 2016. Quorn has denied theallegations. The case is Birbrower v Quorn Foods Inc, Case NumberCV-16-1346 DMG (AJWx).

The parties have agreed to a nationwide class action settlementthat was preliminarily approved by a U.S. District Court Judge forthe Central District of California. The settlement is not to beconstrued as an admission of any wrongdoing by Quorn whatsoever,and Quorn has and continues to deny any wrongdoing and disputesplaintiff's claims.

Lead counsel on behalf of the Class, Jason Frank --jfrank@lawfss.com -- of Frank Sims & Stolper LLP, a law firm basedin Southern California, said in a statement that, "We are pleasedwith the Settlement which we believe provides an excellent outcomefor the Class."

Class members may be entitled to a full refund for purchases madeduring the class period with a proof of purchase, or othermonetary remedies as provided for in the Settlement.

Specific information concerning the Settlement can be found atwww.QuornFoodsSettlement.com.

General Questions concerning the settlement please contact:

EMAIL: info@QuornFoodsSettlement.com PHONE: 1-800-399-9796

To receive a payment from the Settlement, you must complete andsubmit a timely Claim Form and provide any required supportingdocumentation. You can complete your Claim Form and submit therequired supporting documentation online at the SettlementWebsite, www.QuornFoodsSettlement.com. The Claim Form can bedownloaded from the Settlement Website, as well. You can alsorequest a Claim Form be sent to you by sending a written requestto the Claims Administrator by mail or email, or by calling toll-free.

Updates will be posted at www.QuornFoodsSettlement.com asinformation about the Settlement process becomes available.

REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Expresses Concerns Over Rifle Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that the federal judgeconsidering a landmark class action settlement involving 7.5million allegedly defective Remington rifles is raising newconcerns about what he called the "exceedingly small" number ofgun owners who have filed claims to get their guns fixed.

"It seems inconceivable to me that someone would have a firearmthat might injure a loved one and not have it fixed," said U.S.District Judge Ortrie Smith at the start of a three-hour hearingin Kansas City on Feb. 14 to consider final approval of thesettlement.

As of Feb. 13, only about 22,000 owners have filed claims in thetwo years since the settlement was announced, attorneys say. Withas many as 7.5 million guns, that's a claims rate of about 0.29percent. Critics, including attorneys general from nine statesand the District of Columbia, are urging Smith to reject the deal,in part because of those numbers. They also complain that thesettlement sends a mixed message by allowing Remington to continueclaiming the guns are safe.

The case involves some of Remington's best-selling guns includingthe wildly popular Model 700 rifle, which CNBC first investigatedin 2010. Lawsuits have alleged that for decades, Remingtoncovered up a design flaw that allows the guns to fire without thetrigger being pulled, resulting in dozens of deaths and hundredsof serious injuries.

Remington has consistently maintained the guns are free of defectsand that the incidents are the result of user errors. But in late2014, the company said that to avoid drawn-out litigation, it wasagreeing to replace the triggers on millions of guns free ofcharge.

Judge Smith noted that the fewer people file claims, the lessexpensive the settlement will be for Remington.

"If the settlement is approved, Remington is absolved of close tohalf a billion dollars in potential liability . . . at a cost ofless than $3 million," Judge Smith said. "That is a very smallpayment for Remington in this case."

Judge Smith also questioned the $12.5 million in fees thatplaintiffs' lawyers stand to collect if he approves the deal -- nomatter how many claims ultimately are filed.

"That sum sort of looms," Judge Smith said, saying it "seems largecompared to the benefit to the class."

In addition to the criticism from the attorneys general, a handfulof Remington owners have formally objected to the settlement,claiming that the plan to notify the public is needlesslycomplicated and uses ineffective methods like internet banner adsto direct owners to a special settlement web site. Smith alreadysent the parties back to the drawing board once before, inDecember of 2015.

But attorneys for plaintiffs and Remington say the claim numbersdo not tell the full story. M any gun owners are unwilling to turnover their guns to be repaired, especially if they never had aproblem with theirs. And because the guns in question weremanufactured as far back as 1948, many might no longer exist, theysay.

That means the seemingly small claim numbers are notinsignificant, argued plaintiffs' attorney Mark Lanier, and theattorney fees are well deserved.

"20,000 guns is a whole lot of potential life saving," Mr. Laniersaid.

Further complicating the decision for Judge Smith is what thealternative would be if he rejects the deal.

An attorney representing the state of Massachusetts argued Smithshould let the case go to trial.

"The settlement is deeply flawed and can't be fixed at thispoint," said Gary Klein, a Senior Trial Counsel for MassachusettsAttorney General Maura Healey.

But going to trial carries the risk of losing. Five previousclass action cases have been dismissed or withdrawn.

"Then you'd have zero guns fixed. Zero," Mr. Lanier said.

As if to underscore that point, attorney Dale Wills, representingRemington, said the company continues to defend the triggerdesign.

"There are millions of users and owners across the country thatknow one thing well," he said. "The guns work."

Judge Smith has promised a ruling within 30 days.

"You have given me a lot to think about," he said.

If he approves the settlement, owners will have an additional 18months to file a claim.

All yard drivers and road drivers employed by Renzenberger, Inc. in California from August 1, 2011 through the date of certification who worked one or more days of three and one-half (3 1/2) hours or more ("Rest Break Class").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them asrepresentatives of the Rest Break Class, and to appoint HayesPawlenko LLP, Matthew B. Hayes, Esq., and Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.,as class counsel for the Rest Break Class.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 9, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.,to consider the Motion.

SCION DENTAL: Status Hearing in "Orrington" Suit Set for March 15-----------------------------------------------------------------The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois made a docket entry on February 3, 2017, in the casetitled James L. Orrington, II, D.D.S., P.C. v. Scion Dental, Inc.,et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00884 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearingheld before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve.

The minute entry states that:

-- Initial status hearing is set for March 15, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 1241;

-- If the defendant has not been served as of March 10, 2017, the Court will continue the filing date for the joint status report until the defendant is served;

-- If the defendant files a motion to dismiss prior to the filing of the joint status report, the Court will continue the filing date for the joint status report until after the Court rules on the pending motion;

-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as premature without prejudice;

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles Drink Coupons Suit Under New Deal-------------------------------------------------------------Dee Thompson at Cook County Record reports a Chicago federal judgehas ended a long-running lawsuit involving Southwest Airlinespremium drink coupons, after Southwest agreed to give members ofthe class triple damages and attorneys for the plaintiffs agreedto reduce their demand for fees by $200,000.

The litigation has a long and tortured history. In November 2011,Chicago attorney Joseph Siprut filed suit on behalf of JosephLevitt, a Cook County resident, against Southwest Airlines. Thematter arose from a dispute over drink vouchers. Southwest had apolicy of distributing free $5 drink vouchers to customers in itsBusiness Select program. Some travelers would hold on to thecoupons to use on future flights. The coupons had no expirationdate. After issuing the vouchers for years, Southwest decided tostop honoring them. The 2011 class action suit sought to forceSouthwest to pay customers for the vouchers they held.

In 2013 a settlement was reached and replacement coupons, worth acollective face value of $29 million, were given to class members.Siprut asked the court to award him $3 million in fees. The judgeawarded $1.3 million to Siprut initially, and increased the feeaward to $1.6 million several months later, at Siprut's request.The case was appealed, but the settlement was upheld.

The settlement also included class members who had filed claims,who would get drink vouchers good for one year. Levitt and anotherlead plaintiff, Herbert C. Malone, were awarded $15,000 each.

At that point, the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive EnterpriseInstitute's Center for Class Action Fairness joined class membersin objecting to the fees and appealing the ruling, saying theybelieved the fee award was unfair. The judge in the case hadupheld the award, noting it fell well below the $3 million thatSouthwest had set as a limit to what they would pay in attorneyfees.

The appeals court remanded the case back to District Court JudgeMatthew Kennelly, who deemed the fees to be appropriate.

Center for Class Action Fairness attorney Melissa Holyoak said theCenter sought to redirect some of those attorney fees to the classmembers. In June 2016 the district court partially denied theCenter's request and another appeal was filed. Following thatappeal, Southwest and the plaintiffs agreed to rework thesettlement deal to end the litigation and appeals.

"The settlement was unfair because the attorneys' fees award wasgrossly disproportionate to the relief actually delivered to theclass, Holyoak said. "Before the Center for Class Action Fairnessobjected, the plaintiffs' attorneys were to receive $2.11 million,while the class members would have received $412,815 in coupons."

Holyoak told the Cook County Record the judge had upheld the feeawards, even though he "never knew how much the class was actuallyreceiving."

"It wasn't until on appeal that plaintiffs revealed the number ofclaims that were submitted," Holyoak said.

Two appeals later, Holyoak defends the hard-fought case.

Under the original settlement, she said, class members would havereceived $412,815 in coupons - 137,605 coupons with $3 marketvalue - compared to attorneys' fees of $2.11 million.

Under the new settlement, class members will receive $1.23 millionin coupons and attorneys' fees were reduced to $1.88 million.

ST. JOHN, NB: To Appeal Estabrooks Class Action Ruling------------------------------------------------------Global News reports that the City of Saint John wants to appeal ajudge's decision to allow a class action lawsuit regardingconvicted sex offender and former police officer KennethEstabrooks to go forward.

Mr. Estabrooks was sentenced in 1999 to six years in prison onfour sex-related charges against children. He died in 2005. Acity commissioned investigation of Mr. Estabrooks found therecould be hundreds of victims.

A judge ruled there was enough merit to warrant a class actionlawsuit against the city.

The decision to apply for leave to appeal came at a specialmeeting of Common Council. The city says it does not commentpublicly on ongoing legal matters

Robert Hayes, a victim who brought forward the lawsuit, said thecity's decision is frustrating especially after the emotion oftelling an alleged victim the class action lawsuit had beenapproved.

"I shook his hand and told him," Mr. Hayes said. "He sat down onthe stairs and cried just like a little kid".

Mr. Hayes' lawyer John McKiggan believes a class action will besuccessful and said certain facts can't be debated including anEstabrooks confession in 1975.

"So what did the city do?," asked Mr. McKiggan. "Did they chargehim? No. Did they discipline him? No. Did they fire him? No.They simply moved him to the city works department so that he'd beable to collect his pension. So from 1975 until he retired in1983 he continued to work for the city and continued to abusechildren."

Mr. Hayes said he and other alleged victims are prepared tocontinue the fight and are actually gaining strength.

"It's not as hard as it was now that the cats out of the bag and alot of them are saying if they want to hear some stuff, I'll talkabout what he's done," Mr. Hayes said. "If they want to fight,roll up your sleeves and lets go."

The application for leave to appeal is expected to be heard inMay.

STILLWATER MINING: April 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set--------------------------------------------------------------Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., filed a class action complaint in theUnited States District Court for the District of Colorado onbehalf of holders of Stillwater Mining Company common stock inconnection with the proposed acquisition of Stillwater by SibanyeGold Limited and its wholly-owned subsidiaries announced onDecember 9, 2016. The Complaint, which alleges violations of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 against Stillwater, its Board ofDirectors (the "Board"), and Sibanye, is captioned Assad v.Stillwater Mining Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-00267 (D. Colo.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questionsconcerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contactplaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra atRigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com; or at:http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/stillwater-mining-company-swc/.

On December 9, 2016, Stillwater entered into an agreement and planof merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Sibanye. Pursuant to theMerger Agreement, Stillwater shareholders will receive $18.00 pershare in cash (the "Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholdersupport for the Proposed Transaction, on January 24, 2017,defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in aPreliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaintasserts that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Stillwaterstockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omitsmaterial information necessary to enable shareholders to make aninformed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction,including material information with respect to Stillwater'sfinancial projections, the opinions and analyses of Stillwater'sfinancial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction.The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages onbehalf of holders of Stillwater common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than April 17, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representativeparty acting on behalf of other class members in directing thelitigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Courtto serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or maychoose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

TARGET CORP: Superior Court Authorizes Privacy Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Eloise Gratton and Christopher C. Maughan, Esq. --CMaughan@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an articlefor Mondaq, report that privacy class actions triggered by databreaches are growing in popularity in Canada, with more than 30 ofthem pending throughout the country. While none of these caseshave yet been heard on their merits, some are being certified orauthorized. In Quebec, there are at least seven privacy classactions before the courts.

The Superior Court of Quebec recently rendered judgment on amotion to authorize a privacy class action in Zuckerman v. TargetCorporation, in which the petitioner alleged damages as a resultof a data breach involving an estimated 40 million credit anddebit cards, as well as the personal information of up to 70million customers.

The Nature of the Breach

The motion followed a public acknowledgement by the respondentTarget in late 2013 to the effect that there had been unauthorizedaccess to "payment card data" in its U.S. stores, including names,card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes. Target lateracknowledged that encrypted PIN data had been removed from itssystem (while maintaining that PINs were secure), and thatcustomer names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses hadalso been taken.

Target had offered free credit monitoring for a year to allcustomers (including Canadians) who shopped in its U.S. stores.More than 80 class actions followed in the U.S.; these actionswere eventually consolidated into a single proceeding. In Canada,only the Zuckerman class action was filed.

Jurisdictional Issues

After a preliminary jurisdictional challenge, Target argued forumnon conveniens, alleging that its domicile, witnesses, andevidence were all in Minnesota. The Superior Court found that thesame argument could be made from the petitioner's point of viewrelative to QuÇbec. It ultimately decided that it would not "forcea Quebec resident who has suffered damage as a result of the faultof a large U.S. corporation to sue in Minnesota to recover hisdamages."2 The court also narrowed the proposed class to QuÇbecresidents only, based on the specific facts of the case.

Damages Claimed

On behalf of the class, the petitioner alleged damages for fear,confusion, and loss of time (including time spent closelymonitoring accounts); costs or fees for credit monitoring services(Mr. Zuckerman had paid $19.95 for such services prior to Target'soffer to provide them free of charge); Target's failure to notifysome members of the breach; and potential fraud or identity theft.The petitioner also claimed punitive damages, alleging anintentional breach of class members' privacy.

In contesting the petitioner's ability to make out a prima faciecase, Target argued that the inconveniences alleged were notcompensable damages; that the expense incurred by the petitionerfor credit monitoring was not a direct consequence of the allegedfault (especially in light of Target's offer to pay for suchcredit monitoring); that the petitioner himself was not the victimof identity theft, fraud, or a failure to notify; and that therewas simply no appearance of right with respect to punitivedamages.

The question of what counts as compensable damage in privacy classactions has been the subject of some debate. In Zuckerman , thecourt recognized that privacy class actions in QuÇbec may besomewhat unpredictable with respect to whether causes of actionfor inconvenience, stress, and anxiety will be authorized. Itacknowledged the Supreme Court's reasons in Mustapha v. Culliganof Canada Ltd.3 to the effect that "psychological disturbance"must be distinguished from mere "psychological upset." It alsoreferred to two QuÇbec class actions, Sofio v. Organisme canadiende rÇglementation du commerce des valeurs mobiliäres4 and Mazzonnav. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Canada Inc.5 in which theCourt of Appeal and Superior Court respectively held that havingto make normal or routine financial verifications, while sufferingsome stress, cannot ground a claim in damages.

On the other hand, the court also acknowledged statements in Sofioand in another recent case, Belley v. TD Auto Finance,6 to theeffect that allegations of identity theft are not a necessarycondition of authorization in class actions following securitybreaches.

The court held that while monitoring accounts and credit cardstatements are normal activities and not inconveniences for whichdamages can be awarded, activities such as setting up creditmonitoring and security alerts, obtaining credit reports, andcancelling or replacing cards and closing accounts are potentiallycompensable.7

Damages Suffered by Other Class Members

The court authorized common questions with respect to fraud andidentity theft, as well as with respect to an alleged failure tonotify class members of the breach, even though the petitioner didnot allege that he suffered those damages personally. In doing so,the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bank ofMontreal v. Marcotte.8 Given the significant factual differencesbetween Marcotte and Zuckerman, the clearly limited scope of theSupreme Court's reasons, and the potential impact of the Zuckermandecision on defendants' already limited rights at theauthorization stage, the court's reference to Marcotte in thiscontext may be questioned.

That said, the Zuckerman decision is noteworthy in that itillustrates the courts' apparent willingness to authorize privacyclass actions that take into account potential fraud or identitytheft, as well as any failure to notify affected customers.

Takeaways for Businesses

This case provides a number of takeaways for businesses on how tomanage privacy breaches. It is interesting to note that the courtauthorized a common question on Target's alleged failure to notifyaffected customers. While breach notification is not yet mandatoryin most Canadian provinces (it is only mandatory in Alberta),organizations may still decide to notify on a voluntary basis,especially if it is open to customers to argue that their damageswere exacerbated because they did not receive timely notification.

Moreover, given that one of the common questions authorizedagainst Target pertained to the cost of credit monitoringservices, organizations which manage security incidents involvingpersonal information may consider paying for such services (incases that warrant them). This may be considered as a mitigatingfactor when assessing the damages sustained by customers.

The Zuckerman case may also serve as a warning of the extent ofthe potential consequences of a data breach, given the court'sauthorization of a common question pertaining to punitive damages.In response, businesses may wish to invest in prevention andensure that they have adequate security measures in place, as wellas an appropriate privacy governance framework. This will becomeeven more important when the new notification and recordkeepingrequirements in the Personal Information Protection and ElectronicDocuments Act come into force. These requirements provide that itwill be a criminal offence for an organization to knowingly failto report breaches, punishable by significant fines.

Finally, the Zuckerman decision may also serve as a warning tobusinesses that their actions in one jurisdiction (in this case,the United States) can lead to significant legal exposure inanother (i.e., Quebec), in situations where their customer basesextend beyond provincial, state or national borders.

TAUBRA CORP: "Burcham" Suit Seeks OT Wage Under FLSA, Ohio Law--------------------------------------------------------------JAMES BURCHAM and GRADY HILL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THOSESIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, vs. TAUBRA CORP., AN OHIOCORPORATION, D/B/A MERCURY SERVICE, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00115-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, February 7, 2017), alleges thatPlaintiffs and other courier drivers were misclassified asindependent contractors by Defendant under the FLSA and Ohio law.As a result of this misclassification, these drivers are not paidovertime wages nor are they guaranteed appropriate minimum wagesfor their work performed in violation of the Fair Labor StandardsAct and Ohio law.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Soy-Based Wire Coating Ongoing--------------------------------------------------------------John Bartell, writing for KXTV, reports that do you have warninglights and costly car repairs? Rodent damage could be the culpritbehind your next break down.

A class action lawsuit claims the type of plastic used in new carscould be attracting vermin that eat the wires.

"I never could figure out where the stuff came from until I sawthe rat," said Barbara Olm. On more than one occasion a tinyhitch hiker made a meal out of the wiring in Ms. Olm's 2012 Lexus.

The 84-year-old poisoned one rat in her car, but not before therodent cause more than $400 in damage.

"The mechanic found a ground wire and coolant wire eaten by rats,"Ms. Olm said. Today Barbara's best defense against the rodents isa loud radio that she places by her parked car." They don't likecountry music."

Barbara is not the only one with a rat problem. Rodent damage isa regular occurrence at University Honda in Davis.

"42 years in the business and I have seen it from day one," saidUniversity Honda Service manager Mark Campanili. When we met withhim there were 2 cars in his shop with rodent damage.

Chewed up insulation is a cheap fix but wiring damage can becostly. "I have seen a couple in the $2000 range," Mr. Campanilisaid, and damage is not covered under warrantee.

"The plastic coating around the wires is made of soy,"Mr. Kabateck said. "I am not a rat expert, but soy must bedelicious to rats."

The Los Angeles lawyer recently filed a class action lawsuitagainst car maker Toyota Motor Company for their use of a soybased eco-friendly wire coating in many 2012 to 2016 model cars.The lawsuit specifically targets the soy based wire coating andnot the copper wire inside.

Toyota sent ABC10 this statement regarding the lawsuit:

"While we cannot comment on this litigation, we can say thatrodent damage to vehicle wiring occurs across the industry, andthe issue is not brand- or model-specific." Victor VanovCorporate Communications Toyota Motor North America.

Mr. Kabateck believes Toyota may not be the only car maker usingthe soy based plastic coating.

"At least Ford and Subaru and other dealers are using a similarproduct and their owners are reporting similar problems,"Mr. Kabateck said.

The goal of the class action lawsuit is get Toyota to cover rodentdamage in cars with the soy based plastic. Honda is also facing aclass action lawsuit. Mr. Kabateck says other car manufacturersmay see similar lawsuits in the future.

Extermination company Terminex ranks Sacramento as one of the top10 cities for roof rats. The rodents are not picky when it comesto choosing a nesting spot.

"The number one advice I can give is to drive your car every day,"said Terminex Spokesperson Leo Skattebo.

A car parked for more than 48 hours is like a welcome mat forrodents. Mr. Skattebo says your car may be at the most risk inyour garage. If rats have moved into the garage, traps are thebest way to get rid of them.

"Regular snap traps work great, but If it a high traffic area, saywith pet or kid you should use sticky traps," Mr. Skattebo said.

Rodent damage may not be covered under warrantee at this time, butsome home owner's insurance will cover some of the damage. Checkwith your provider.

TRIGENICS HEALTH: Certification of Class Sought in Swetlic Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SWETLIC CHIROPRACTIC &REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually andas the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.TRIGENICS HEALTH GROUP INC., THE TRIGENICS INSTITUTE OFNEUROMUSCULAR MEDICINE INC., THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OFTRIGENICS INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:17-cv-00100-ALM-TPK(S.D. Ohio), moves for certification of this class:

All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did not have "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, and (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established business relationship, and/or (5) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.

Swetlic tells the Court that it files the "placeholder" Motion forClass Certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off"attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attemptto prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on classcertification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claimsby tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.The Plaintiff, hence, asks the Court to allow this "placeholder"motion to remain pending to protect against any alternative pick-off attempt following the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

Swetlic also asks to be appointed as the class representative andfor the appointment of its attorneys as class counsel.

All current and former customers of defendant Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company who owned real property insured by defendant between September 20, 2013 and March 10, 2016. Excluded from the proposed class are defendant, its past or current officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns and entities in which any of them have a controlling interest. Also excluded is defendant's indirect ultimate parent entity, and any entity in which any of them have a controlling interest, directly or indirectly. The proposed class also excludes all judicial officers assigned to this case as defined by 28 U.S.C. Section 455(b), and their immediate families.

Plaintiffs Karen Rodriguez, Antonio Rodriguez, Boris Shaykevichand Yelena Shaykevich also move (i) to be appointed as classrepresentatives, and (ii) for appointment of Kaplan Fox &Kilsheimer LLP as Lead Counsel and Wites & Kapetan P.A. as LiaisonCounsel.

On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaintalleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Breach ofContract and Unjust Enrichment against Universal Property. AsFlorida's largest private issuer of homeowners' insurancepolicies, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant makes certainsensitive customer information available to third-party mortgagelenders, including insurance declaration pages and evidence ofinsurance through the Lender Verification portal on its Web site.

US NONWOVENS: Mendez Seeks Approval of Notice to Class Members--------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned EFRAIN DANILO MENDEZ, etal. v. U.S. NONWOVENS CORP., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-05583-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), ask the Court approve their proposed class noticeand to authorize their counsel to mail the notice, via first classmail, to all class members within 30 days of the Court's order.

The plaintiffs in the suit claimed that Wackenhut Corp. violatedCalifornia labor laws by failing to provide employees with off-duty meal and rest breaks, and also provided inadequate wagestatements.

"The trial court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for classcertification," the decision of the Second Appellate Division'sFourth Division said. "However, as the case approached trial, theUnited States Supreme Court reversed a grant of classcertification on (another case) Walmart v. Dukes.

The trial court -- the Los Angeles Superior Court -- reversed itsdecision to certify a class in the case.

The appeals court found that Wackenhut lacked a rest-break policyand then further implemented a policy that required securityofficers to remain on call during their breaks.

The court of appeal also held that the plaintiffs could sue basedon inadequate wage statements, based on Labor Code, section 226.The court explained that certain required information was missingfrom the wage statements, which implied that putative classmembers were injured.

The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court forfurther consideration.

In the civil action, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and apurported class, avers that a hotel reservation website for whichthe Defendants are responsible violated the New Jersey ConsumerFraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-1, et seq., and the NewJersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act(TCCWNA), N.J.S.A. Section 56:12-14, et seq. In sum, thePlaintiffs' Class Action Complaint avers that he reserved a hotelroom through the website, which did not adequately disclose thetotal costs associated with the room.

Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint,one filed by Defendants WHG and WHR arguing that (1) Plaintiff'sCFA claim fails because the website's disclosures were adequate,because the Plaintiff has not pleaded ascertainable loss, andbecause the Plaintiff cannot sue under New Jersey law; and (2) theTCCWNA claim, which is based on the website Terms of Use, failsbecause the Plaintiff suffered no injury from the Terms of Use andthus lacks Constitutional and statutory standing to sue. Theother Motion was filed by Defendants WHM and WWC arguing that thePlaintiff has not sufficiently pied facts that would supportdirect liability against them, and that derivative liabilityprinciples do not apply.

In his Opinion dated February 15, 2017 available athttps://is.gd/sYj0Jx from Leagle.com, Judge Hornak granted withoutprejudice the motion to dismiss filed by WHM and WWC because thePlaintiffs' Complaint fails to provide WHM and WHC with sufficientfactual content to provide the "fair notice" required byapplicable pleading standards and that the allegations do notallow the reasonable inference that WHM and WWC are liable for thealleged conduct. As to WHG and WHR, the Court denied withoutprejudice finding that the Plaintiffs allegations are sufficientto assert a quantifiable loss for CFA purposes.

* FICALA Changes Seek to Address Worrisome Litigation Practices---------------------------------------------------------------Andrew Trask, Esq. -- atrask@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoodsLLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the House ofRepresentatives has reintroduced the Fairness in Class ActionLitigation Act (FICALA), and it's more substantial than the 2015version. The previous version, you may recall, attempted toreinforce the typicality requirement to minimize the number of "noinjury" class actions brought. It cleared the House, but died inthe Senate. It appears that House Republicans sense anopportunity with the new administration to enact more sweepingclass reforms.

It's not seeing to abolish the class action, but to curb some ofthe more worrisome litigation practices that have evolved sinceCAFA.

It resurrects the requirement that the named plaintiff suffer thesame "type and scope" of injury (Sec. 1716). This is an importantstep in combatting the problem posed by "no injury" class actions(more accurately, "mixed injury" class actions), where a namedplaintiff who has suffered a compensable loss seeks to representthousands or millions of class members who did not. Thesefrequently lead to questionable class settlements.It requires class counsel to disclose any conflicts of interest(Sec. 1717). The adequacy requirement of Rule 23 is criminallyunder-enforced. It's the biggest open secret in class actionsthat plaintiffs do not hire the counsel, the counsel recruits theplaintiffs. Recruiting is harder than it sounds, so counsel willoften turn to business associates, family, friends, members of thelaw firm, or former clients. This provision would require thoserelationships to be disclosed up front, instead of waiting for thedeposition of the named plaintiff to uncover it. Moving thisdisclosure up is a good thing: if the proposed representative hasa disqualifying conflict, the court should know as soon aspossible.

Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, in her comments to the bill,has a more substantive critique: what about when repeat clientsare good, like the pension funds that bring securities classactions?

It codifies the Third Circuit's ascertainability requirement (Sec1718(a)). As you may recall, this was a topic on the table forthe Rules Advisory Committee during the recent amendment process.The Committee backed away from it as "too controversial." Butcodifying some ascertainability requirement remains a good idea.Should it be the Third Circuit's "administrative feasibility"requirement? Professor Burch says no, that makes certificationtoo hard. Professor Myriam Gilles, in her comments, goes further,worrying that it provides "impunity" to corporate defendants.Ultimately, one's view on this provision is going to depend onone's view of the class action: is it a "deterrent" thatauthorizes self-appointed enforcers to bring massive lawsuits forhuge fees, or is it a mechanism for getting compensation toinjured parties. If you're an enforcer, you don't need a methodof distributing compensation, but you also probably run afoul ofthe Rules Enabling Act, and so you should get explicitCongressional authorization under the Constitution. If you're acompensator, then you need to know how to get that compensation tothe class members: the Third Circuit's standard does that.

It directly ties attorneys' fees to the relief class membersreceive, and makes the attorneys wait until the class members getit (Sec. 1718(b)). This, one would think, would beuncontroversial. Hardly. In the words of Professor PatriciaMoore: "This bill would critically hobble class actions by makingthem much more difficult to certify and reducing the compensationto plaintiffs' class action lawyers."

In fact, much of the criticism I've been hearing behind the scenescomes from this "delaying fees" provision. Let me just say this:if the biggest problem you have with a bill is that it makes itharder for the lawyers to get paid, well, that tells you wherepeople's priorities lie.

It requires the lawyers to give settlement data for further study(Sec. 1719). The biggest problem with the enforcer v. compensatordebate, or the "are class actions frivolous" debate, is thatthere's just not a lot of data available for academics to testtheir arguments. This section seeks to remedy that. Once again,unalloyed good, right? Apparently not. Professor Burch has twoworries. One, this doesn't go far enough, there should be moredata. To which I respond, sign me up! The other, though: I'lluse her words:

"requiring an accounting before paying plaintiffs' attorneys couldcreate a bottleneck and backlog. As such, this provision appearsto be less concerned about delivering the necessary data to judgesand more concerned with holding up plaintiffs' attorneys' funds inadministration so as to prevent them from investing in newlawsuits."

Sure, we need data. But first we apparently need to pay thelawyers.

There is, by the way, a simpler reason to require the data beforepaying the lawyers: it ensures the data gets published, instead oflanguishing for some extended period. After all, once the lawyersare paid, their incentive to do the rest of the work diminishesconsiderably.

It requires issues classes to meet the requirements of Rule23(b)(3) overall (Sec. 1720). This, of course, has been alongstanding debate among class action litigators: does Rule23(b)(3) govern Rule 23(c)(4), or is Rule 23(c)(4) a "get out ofpredominance free" card that allows one to sever all of thepredominating individualized issues? (This was another provisionthe Advisory Committee considered, and then backed off from.)This provision would codify the common-sense reading of Rule 23:Rule 23(a) & (b) control certification requirements, Rule 23(c)tells you how to effect that once you've made the determination.Will it make it harder to certify classes? Sure, if they havepredominating individual issues.

Mr. Trask said "It requires a stay of discovery if a motion todismiss or strike class allegations gets filed (Sec. 1721). I haveadvocated for this for a long time. The PSLRA already requiresthis stay in securities class actions; and those are hardly deador delayed. And it simply makes sense: if a dispositive motionhas been filed that challenges the complaint as facially flawed,why would you embark on expensive and time-consuming discovery?Resolve the facial motion first, then get into the case. (TheSecond and Ninth Circuits already require this for classdiscovery, even if it's rarely enforced.) Professor Burch, amongothers, worries that this will needlessly delay the cases. But itis a simple fact, reported by judges even, that plaintiffs can usethe threat of discovery as a cudgel in class actions. This wouldreduce costs on both sides, and make sure that meritorious classactions get the discovery they deserve."

"It requires disclosure of any third-party funders of classactions (Sec. 1722). I've advocated for this for a long time aswell (though not as long as Skadden's John Beisner). Defendants,of course, are already subject to this requirement: Rule 26requires disclosure of any insurance. If someone else is payingmoney and directing the litigation rather than the classrepresentative, the court should know about it. (And judges, oncethey learn this is a possibility, do want to know about it.)Professor Burch worries that this might require firms to divulgeother firms they work with but otherwise won't disclose until thefee request: I really don't see why that's a bad thing.It mandates appeals for all certification rulings (Sec 1723). Itappears that this language would replace the discretionary appealprocess under Rule 23(f). And here, I'll make myself unpopular inthe defense bar: I don't think that this provision is necessary orwise. Yes, in a given case, the losing party at certificationwill always want to appeal that judgment. And yes, as a practicalmatter, one can view the certification ruling as a de facto finalorder. But, appealing every class cert grant or denial would (a)needlessly tie up the Court of Appeals and (b) result in lots ofconflicting or ill-considered opinions. (Think of the number ofcases filed in the various California districts, all of whichwould now sit before the Ninth Circuit.) Moreover, defendantshave good options available already, including (a) decertificationmotions, (b) various trial motions, and (c) an appeal should theytry the case all the way through. I understand why HouseRepublicans might want this provision, but I'd hope they'd tradeit away if they need to."

Is the bill perfect? Of course not. (See, e.g., Sec. 1723.) Butit is a well-considered, common-sense response to several long-standing issues that have plagued class litigation for the lastdecade.

* Litigation Funders Steer Clear of Class Actions-------------------------------------------------Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that some industryplayers are steering clear of class actions because of a ban onattorneys sharing fees with nonlawyers. Others are willing toinvest but structure their deals to avoid the rule.

When the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia became the first federal court in the nation to setdown transparency requirements for litigation funding, it focusedon a particular segment of the industry: class actions. The majorfunders such as Burford Capital and Bentham IMF reacted with ashrug, saying that class actions are a small or nonexistent partof their business.

It invites the question: why have some litigation financierssteered clear of what plaintiffs lawyers have long recognized is alucrative area of the legal profession? The answer involves abedrock rule of American legal ethics, and points to the carefuland sometimes divergent ways that litigation funders keep on theright side of its mandate that attorneys not share fees withnonlawyers.

The gravamen: Litigation funders are tiptoeing around a legalethics rule that prohibits lawyers from sharing their fees withnon-lawyers. But they don't always take a consistent approach.Why it matters: The fee-splitting rule is limiting the types ofcases that some funders will back and the way they structure theirdeals. Some say it's not meant to apply to litigation financefirms, while others see it as helping safeguard attorneyindependence.

Bentham takes the position that it cannot fund an individual classaction and comply with the so-called fee-splitting ban. Collectinga return on its investment directly from the attorney, in itsview, would clearly run afoul of the rule and attempting tocontract with hundreds or thousands of class members would belogistically difficult if not impossible. Not to mention thatjudges would almost certainly frown on a funder attempting tocollect on an investment from the class.

Burford, on the other hand, posits that it can bankroll classaction lawyers directly as long as the deals are tailoredcarefully. The financier might, for instance, set the return at afixed amount rather than as a percentage of the lawyer's fees,according to Travis Lenkner, managing director of Burford. In aninterview last month, he said that class actions are a "quitesmall" part of the funder's business.

It's true that either way the money is paid back from fees thelawyer recovers through a judgment or settlement. But financierssuch as Burford view these types of fixed-amount arrangements asakin to traditional financing offered by banks, althoughinvestments by litigation funders are often nonrecourse andinvolve heavy vetting of the underlying legal matter.

The disparate positions adopted by funders highlight just howlittle clarity there is on the meaning of the fee-splitting ban asit applies to litigation finance. They also demonstrate how theindustry is navigating ethical rules that were created long beforemodern litigation financing developed, in order to tap a legalmarket that has come under increasing cost pressures.

"I'm sure it's correct to say that nobody had litigation fundingof class actions in mind when they drafted that rule," saidPeter Jarvis, a partner at Holland & Knight and co-author of "TheLaw of Lawyering." He added: "I think there is a question thatthe profession and courts and so forth will need to answer overthe next couple years about how to make this work."

In a class action pending against Chevron Inc. in the Bay Area, adisclosed funding agreement between a pair of California attorneysand U.K.-based Therium Capital Management took something of ahybrid approach, promising Therium six times the $1.7 million itinvested in the lawyers, plus 2 percent of all "proceeds." Themoney is explicitly to be paid out of the lawyers' fees under theagreement.

The Bay Area-based Law Finance Group, which frequently funds classactions and was involved in the massive LCD flat panel price-fixing case in the Northern District of California, structures itsinvestments so that the law firm pays back the principal plus aninterest rate, said Alan Zimmerman, who heads the company. "Wenever share the fee with the lawyer,"Mr. Zimmerman said. "We get a return."

Bentham's decision to stay away from funding class actions appearsto be done out of an abundance of caution, amid moves to subjectthe industry to even more scrutiny.

"I'm not disparaging what our contemporaries feel is acceptableunder the ethical rules. What I'm telling you is what we believe,our interpretation," said Matthew Harrison, head of Bentham's SanFrancisco office. "We never want to be accused by anyone --whether it's the court or an opponent or anyone that we contractwith -- of being unethical."

MURKY WATERS

The American Bar Association ban on fee-splitting, established asModel Rule 5.4(a), has been replicated in the codes for attorneyconduct by state bars across the U.S. The rule dates back to theearly 1900s, and most experts agree it was intended to prevent thekind of situation where a doctor refers an injured patient to alawyer with the promise of receiving a portion of the lawyer's feeas a kickback. Ostensibly, it aims to keep lawyers from havingtheir judgment compromised by outside financial interests.Over the past few decades, as litigation finance has developed,state bar associations have occasionally taken up inquiries fromlawyers about whether Rule 5.4(a) would allow or prohibit variousfinancing arrangements. The resulting opinions have not revealeda clear, bright-line rule, according to a forthcoming paper byAnthony Sebok, a professor at Yeshiva University's Cardozo LawSchool in New York and a legal ethics adviser to Burford.

The Texas bar's ethics committee, for example, determined in a2006 opinion that it would be fee-splitting -- and thereforeprohibited -- if a lender funded an attorney's litigation expenseson the condition that the attorney repay the amount advanced plusa funding fee equal to a fixed percentage of any amount recovered,when and if the client recovered in the lawsuit.

In an opinion the same year, a North Carolina ethics committeefound that a similar nonrecourse loan would not be fee-splittingif the repayment were the principal plus a sum based on aninterest rate, and if the breach of the loan agreement would beenforceable against the lawyer's property. But it would be fee-splitting, it reasoned, if the repayment was the principal plus apercentage of the lawyer's fees or if the only source of repaymentwas the lawyer's contingent fee in the case.

If you think that reasoning seems a bit serpentine, you're notalone.

"I would say that we are in a current environment where there isconfusion about the meaning of Rule 5.4(a) as it extends tofinance," Mr. Sebok said in an interview. For his part, he arguesthat the ethics rules should treat litigation funding nodifferently than they treat so-called factoring of law firmreceivables, a practice in which a law firm sells its accountsreceivable to a third party at a discount.

"My view is maybe we should stop forcing people to createtransactions according to formalistic boundaries," mr. Sebok said,"and just create transactions on what's in the best interest ofboth parties in the transaction with an eye to risk forinterference into the client's interest."

The ABA declined to comment for this article.

OTHER FUNDING MODELS

It bears saying that class actions are far from the only time thatlitigation funders will directly contract with a lawyer or lawfirm. To the contrary, much of Burford's business is so-calledportfolio funding, where the funder essentially gives a pot ofcash to a firm and the return is paid off based on the fees from abasket of cases that the funder assesses. There seems to be ageneral agreement among funders that this type of "de-coupling" ofthe investment from any individual case sufficiently quells thenotion that the financing might be fee-splitting.

In what is seen as the birthplace of modern litigation funding, inAustralia, where Bentham is headquartered, the system for classactions is significantly different from the U.S. Plaintiffattorneys can bring an action on behalf of what is referred to asan "opt-in" or "closed" class, and if a litigation funder isinvolved, the individuals who consent to join the class generallyhave to agree to share a portion of their recovery with thefunder. Put simply, it is the class members -- and not theattorney -- who are sharing their payment with the financier.

The lack of clarity about the fee-splitting rule in the U.S.hasn't stopped some funders from forging ahead. And for the mostpart, they have gone unchallenged. In the few instances wherecourts have been confronted with arguments that a fundingagreement violates ethics rules -- at least in one instance, by afundee trying to escape having to pay -- judges have beenunpersuaded, according to Mr. Sebok's paper.

Philip Schaeffer, the former general counsel of White & Case,co-chaired an ABA working group that published a white paper in2012 on legal ethics and third-party finance. He sees theconfusion about what the rule requires as the result of anoutdated system of ethics rules.

"It seems to me what you've got essentially is it's a loan to thelawyers that's secured by the fees. That's not an extraordinarything," Mr. Schaeffer said in an interview. "This business ischanging very, very quickly and the rules that the ABA havefoisted on the country are very, very foolish. They are reallyantiquated."

Still, some see these types of arrangements as at least creating apotential pressure point for lawyers, especially if the finance isnonrecourse and the funder has a direct stake in the outcome ofthe case. "The question that could be asked," said Holland &Knight's Jarvis, is "does that kind of funding threaten theexercise of independent professional judgment on the part of thelawyers?"

* New House Bill to Impact Class Action Lawyers' Legal Fees-----------------------------------------------------------Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a new bill inCongress would make class-action lawyers work much harder fortheir money, by requiring courts to peg legal fees to the actualamount of money their clients receive and throwing obstacles inthe way of consumer class actions where a vanishingly smallpercentage of consumers get anything at all.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 was introducedFeb. 10 by U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the same congressmanwho introduced the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 banningcoupon settlements and pushing many class actions into federalcourt where judges tend to be a little more skeptical of lawyer-driven litigation.

Rep. Goodlatte's latest bill would go much farther, eliminatingmost of the tactics plaintiff lawyers use to extract large feesfor themselves while delivering little or nothing to theirclients. It wouldn't close the courthouse doors to consumers, ascritics are sure to say. Nothing in the law would prevent a groupof plaintiffs who suffered the same damages to hire a singlelawyer and ask the court to join their cases together forefficiency. What it would do is discourage lawyer-drivenlitigation, where plaintiff attorneys target a company with aclass-action suit knowing full well the bulk of their clients willnever learn of the lawsuit or seek to claim their piece of thesettlement.

Plaintiff lawyers say that's the same thing as outlawing classactions, since nobody will hire a lawyer to pursue a $2 overchargeon their cellphone bill. But they are engaging in ends-justifies-the-means reasoning that not incidentally puts money in theirpockets. If mass consumer litigation is worthwhile, consumersshould be able to join it willingly, not be forced into it withouttheir knowledge.

The proposed law has already drawn strong criticism from, amongothers, Myriam Gilles of Cardozo Law and Elizabeth Burch of theUniversity of Georgia Law School. Allison Frankel at Reuters alsothinks it would "gut class actions" and discourage some types ofcivil rights litigation (which was the original intent behind Rule23, the federal rule approved by Congress that established theclass action in the first place). I examine at the bill's majorprovisions and some of their criticisms below:

Uniform damages. Class members would have to have suffered damagesof "the same type and scope of injury" to be bundled into a singleaction. This would discourage lawsuits where plaintiffs have awide variety of damages, including some with no damages at all,which defendant companies say unfairly complicates their defense.Gilles and Burch say this requirement conflicts with decisionsincluding last year's Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which upheld aclass action verdict even though some class members weren'tentitled to anything. It's practically impossible to construct aclass with no zero-damages members, Gilles and Burch say. But howdoes that square with the U.S. Constitution's requirement thatcourts hear only cases and controversies where plaintiffs have anactual claim?

Ascertainability. This is a big one, and it is surprising judgesdon't require it already. The bill would require plaintiff lawyersto demonstrate there is a "reliable and administratively feasiblemechanism" to identify who their clients are and distribute moneyto them directly. Burch says this would "mire the courts and theparties in unnecessary and costly discovery," and Gilles says itwould eliminate the deterrent value of small-dollar consumer classactions where consumers don't have records of their purchases.The first criticism assumes plaintiff lawyers would even get todiscovery with lawsuits that lack identifiable plaintiffs. Thesecond assumes there is a meaningful deterrent value to consumerclass actions, which typically settle for little more than thefees of the plaintiff lawyers which are covered by insurance. Italso assumes the goal of deterrence outweighs the cost oflitigation. Both are debatable at best. If a company's behavioris egregious enough, regulators and state attorneys general canand do deliver the deterrence.

Fees. Plaintiff lawyers could only be paid a percentage of whattheir clients actually recover, not some fanciful calculation ofwhat might get paid out if everybody submitted a claim, whichalmost never happens. They'd also have to wait until all themoney is paid out to get their fee. Critics say this woulddiscourage settlements like the NFL players' concussion suit,where the money will flow for decades. Fair enough. Allow judgesto present-value settlements that pay out over time and award afee based on that. But tying fees to the actual amounts paid outwould eliminate the glaring conflict facing plaintiff lawyers, whohave an incentive to collude with defendant companies on asettlement that looks good on paper but only really representstheir fee.

Reporting. Another proposal that is long overdue. Before theycould collect their fees, class counsel would have to submit tothe Federal Judicial Center data on the amount actually paid bythe defendant company, the number of class members who were paid,the average and median payment per class member, and any moneypaid to non-class members. Burch says she supports reporting butthat holding lawyers' fees hostage to it "could create abottleneck and backlog." Or not, if lawyers comply promptly withthe requirement, and negotiate settlements that pay out quicklyand reliably. Now, plaintiff lawyers hide the data showing howineffective their settlements are. They also tend to disguisepayments to rival firms that otherwise might have competed againstthem on fees and friends and relatives who may or may not haveearned a piece of the settlement pie. These are plaintiff lawyerswho claim to be defending consumers against sharp practices bycorporate defendants; they should be held to the same standards ofdisclosure and honesty as their targets.No conflicts. Class-action lawyers couldn't tap relatives,employees or present or former clients to serve as classrepresentatives. This would eliminate the squalid practice ofrecruiting friends 'n' family to serve as bogus representatives inbogus lawsuits designed only to elicit a nuisance settlement. Italso would tighten considerably the widely ignored requirementunder the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act limiting leadplaintiffs in securities class actions to five cases in a three-year period. A complete ban on law firms representing formerclients in class actions might go too far, but under the currentrules too many nuisance suits feature "representative" plaintiffsthat are too close to the lawyers they are supposed to be watchingwith a critical eye.

MDL procedures. The bill also would require plaintiffs to presentsolid evidence of injury before their cases are included inmultidistrict litigation, a technique federal courts use toconsolidate mass litigation before a single judge to resolvecommon issues. Too often lawyers salt the mine with a few high-dollar cases and then throw in hundreds or thousands of lawsuitswith little evidence behind them to negotiate big settlements.Under this law, questionable cases would be dismissed within 30days.

This bill is sure to draw strong criticism from trial lawyers, whorepresent some of the best-paid and most important contributors tothe Democratic Party. But examine their message closely. It'slikely to be more ends-justifies-the-means rhetoric, claimingtheir rich fees are the price the public must pay to holdcorporations accountable for overcharging consumers a penny awidget. Maybe so, but who can argue with them at the very leastbeing required to supply the information they possess showing howeffective they are at achieving their mission?

* South African Gold Mining Cos. Near Silicosis Settlement----------------------------------------------------------Greg Nicolson, writing for Daily Maverick, reports that fordecades, the gold mining industry ignored health and safetystandards and exposed black workers to silicosis and tuberculosis.Class action cases are still in court, with the Supreme Court ofAppeal to decide whether they can go ahead. An out-of-courtsettlement, however, looks likely.

Speaking at the Mining Indaba, Occupational Lung Disease WorkingGroup chairman Graham Briggs was confident a settlement would bereached this year with mineworkers who have launched class actionsuits against more than two dozen gold mining companies.

The mineworkers are demanding compensation for employees, or theirdescendants, who contracted silicosis and tuberculosis in themines. If the cases proceed in court they could take over adecade to resolve.

"We are optimistic because we are working together and we arecontinuing to talk to the class action lawyers, the various unionsand the claimants' lawyers," said Mr. Briggs. The Working Grouprepresents six large mining companies, African Rainbow Minerals,Anglo American, AngloGold Ashanti, Harmony, Goldfields andSibanye.

Mr. Briggs, former CEO of Harmony, said, "There is no reason tobelieve that a settlement cannot be found that would be fair toclaimants and sustainable for the companies." An out-of-courtsettlement is likely to be agreed upon this year, he suggested.

The South Gauteng High Court last year certified two classes toproceed with compensation claims against gold mining companies,with cases dating back as far as 1965, affecting up to 200,000current and former mineworkers. It could cost the miningcompanies billions of rand, but with a lengthy litigation processahead, a court case means many suffering mineworkers may not liveto see their compensation.

Mr. Briggs was confident a settlement might be reached in 2017because he said engagements between the claimants' lawyers, unionsand government had been positive and finding a fair andsustainable solution sooner rather than later was in the interestsof the different parties.

Predictions on how many mineworkers could claim compensationthrough the class action suits vary, with Mr. Briggs claiming thateven 100,000 people could be an overestimation. "It's a bigproblem, but we're making progress," said Briggs on the difficultyof tracking down former workers.

If a settlement is reached, it's also unclear how much it couldcost the mining companies, with potential compensation still to beagreed upon and claimants, beyond the 25,000 or so listed in theclass action suits, needing to come forward.

The Occupational Lung Disease Working Group envisages a settlementagreement that would include a "legacy fund" under which theaffected could claim compensation. This would be in addition tothe compensation due to them from government, which has failed tomanage and distribute billions of rand owed to mineworkers. Mr.Briggs was asked at length at the indaba about what he saidamounted to R3.7-billion sitting in the government compensationfund, made up of employer contributions, which has not been paid.

Mr. Briggs, however, wouldn't go into detail on who might be ableto claim compensation through the legacy fund. Mining companieshave been granted leave to appeal three aspects of the classaction in the Supreme Court of Appeal. They will argue againstthe certification of classes claiming compensation for silicosisand tuberculosis, as well as the South Gauteng High Court'sdecision to allow dependants of deceased workers to join theaction.

Charles Abrahams, from Abrahams Kiewitz, which has been working onthe class action with Richard Spoor Attorneys and the LegalResource Centre, on Feb. 15 said settlement discussions continuedin good faith. "There have been discussions. Those discussionshave been ongoing and they're aimed at finding a resolution thatincludes compensation," said Mr. Abrahams.

According to representatives of both mineworkers and miningcompanies, current compensation discussions include potentiallycompensating workers who have contracted silicosis andtuberculosis, as well as the dependents of employees who havepassed away. Mr. Abrahams said it would be in his clients' bestinterest if a decent settlement is reached out of court.

The legal action is complex and there is strong on the parties totake the issue forward. As Lucas Ledwaba wrote on Feb. 14 aboutsuffering mineworkers: "Without work and unable to work due totheir poor physical state, they continue, together with theirdependents, to go hungry and struggle to pay for medical care.Silicosis has rendered them mere shells, pale shadows of theirformer selves, men who struggle to as much as walk a few hundredmetres to a clinic."

During the Mining Indaba, Sonke Gender Justice, which has beenadmitted as amicus curiae in the class action cases, led a numberof protests in Cape Town representing silicosis sufferers. Theorganisation, which is represented by SECTION27, acts for thewomen and children who have suffered as a result of occupationallung disease in mining.

"Personally, I hear about people protesting. We need those peopleto come forward and say, 'I was a miner and this is my record',"said Briggs, appearing frustrated with protesters and the publicoutrage over the case.

Sonke's Patrick Godana on Feb. 15 was in King William's Town,Eastern Cape, visiting women and children affected by silicosisand tuberculosis in the gold mining industry. He said he has seenhow the families of the sick are particularly impacted upon.

Mr. Godana met a silicosis sufferer who could hardly breathe. Hisyoung daughter had not gone to school on Feb. 15. She was missingout on her education because she had to care for her father. Manyrural women are foregoing work and education opportunities becausethey have to care for the sick, saidMr. Godana.

He said there are "some indications" that the mining companieswant to achieve an out-of-court settlement this year, but it wouldneed to benefit the affected, their carers and their communities."If they opt to settle outside of court, the better for us," saidMr. Godana. "People are dying."

For now, it seems an out-of-court settlement is likely. Thequestion is when, and, most important, how much.

* Supreme Court Rules in Favor of People with Leprosy in Suit-------------------------------------------------------------KBS World Radio reports the Supreme Court has ruled, for the firsttime, that the state has the responsibility to providecompensation for its policy to have people with leprosy undergovasectomies and abortions.

The top court on February 15 upheld a lower court ruling thatsought compensation of 40 million won each to ten people withleprosy who were forced to undergo abortions and of 30 million woneach to nine people who had to undergo vasectomies.

The final ruling came some five years after the 19 people began aclass action suit against the government which had refused tocompensate them.

In its ruling, the court said the operations that were carried outon the plaintiffs were the execution of illegal governmental powerthus the state must assume responsibility.

The 19 leprosy patients were forced to undergo vasectomies andabortions while being treated at state-run hospitals in SorokIsland and other cities between 1955 and 1977.

The operations on people with leprosy began in Yeosu in 1935 whenthe nation was under Japanese colonial rule.

The policy resulted from the wrong belief that leprosy ishereditary. In Sorok Island off the south coast, which housed acommunity of people with leprosy, married people were allowed tolive together from 1936 on the condition they had vasectomies.

Five other lawsuits filed by about 520 leprosy patients arepending at the Supreme Court and the Seoul Central District Courtwith similar rulings expected.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.